PDA

View Full Version : Nietzschean Christianity?



Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 07:09 PM
This is a thread that I've been meaning to make for some time. I certainly would like to hear the perspectives of both Christians and Nietzscheans on this topic.

Already in a few threads already here, I made mention of the concept of "Nietzschean Christianity". This is probably one of the most neglected aspects of Nietzschean discussions, and hopefully this will help bring light to it.

Basically Im quoting from John Hellman's The Communitarian Third Way (http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=305), which details the activities and doctrines of the Non-Conformist movement that was active in many parts of Europe during the inter-war years(and even during WW2). Basically they sought new ways of thinking that would revitalize European civilization and its spiritual foundation of Christianity. Many of the ideals promoted by this movement would reach wider significance and influence during the post-war years. And as Hellman also notes, one of the direct legacy of this movement is Alain de Benoist and the European New Right(although they reject the Christian tone of the original non-Conformists).

One major theme of the non-conformists, and its leader Alexandre Marc, was that the Nietzschean "will to power" could be an effective tool that would help to add more vigour and vitality to the Christian faith, which had degenerated due to Bourgeois decadence and mediocrity. Emmanuel Mounier, another leading intellectual in this movement, even openly referred to his variation of this concept as "Ubermensch Christianity".

Here's a basic outline of that belief system:

“All the non-conformists were Nietzscheans – several were authors of books on him – and the Nietzschean Marc’s style was sharp, eloquent and forceful…Marc and his comrades tended to value fidelity, generosity, and courage as noble Christian qualities rather than kindness, compassion, and humility…Marc was of a generation of Nietzschean Catholics for whom friends were more important than the institutional Church, who found people who wrote about Jesus more interesting than Christians, and who saw nothing fundamentally incompatible between fascism or national socialism and the gospel teachings. Marc reconciled Nietzsche and Christianity by creating Otto Neumann, a pseudonym allowing a self-conscious Russian Jew to become an influential German Catholic communitarian theologian. Marc wrote much on reconciling Nietzsche and Christianity, but what remains is his zealous Christianity married to the German youth movement, the conviction that their melding could inspire, could change the world.”
--Hellman, pg. 186;188

And here's the basic historical background behind this intellectual development, and especially about the great influence of the Christian Existenialist Gabriel Marcel had on it:

“In 1930 Paris, religious, philosophical, and political conversion experiences overlapped with, mutually reinforced, one another. A man like Alexandre Marc could share his intense religious and philosophical concerns with a host of other intellectuals who could understand and sympathize, like the young philosophy professor Gabriel Marcel. Son of a Jewish mother and religiously indifferent father, agrege in philosophy at only twenty, Marcel had been upset by his World War I experience, and soberly recorded his search for meaning in a formal Metaphysical Journal, published in 1927. Like Marc, Marcel was attracted both to Christian religiousity and Nietzsche, and to German philosophers like Karl Jaspers sympathetic to both. Marcel was the first in France to call his new way of doing philosophy “existentialism”. Although the term “existential” had been employed thirty years earlier in France to stigmatize Kierkegaard’s writings, it was new for a philosopher to identify with it. Marc, Jaspers, and Marcel all thought German phenomenology had important religious implications, and Marcel had converted to Catholicism in 1929. Marcel, like Marc, frequented Charles Du Bos’s salon, and was brought along by Marc to Club du Moulin Vert and Ordre Nouveau(ON) meetings, which he found stimulating. This philosopher with a growing reputation helped Marc’s early efforts, co-signing Marc’s first manifesto (“Appel”) for an Ordre Nouveau in March 1931.

Marcel encouraged Marc’s interest in Jaspers as someone who (like the German Max Scheler) wanted to reconcile Christian transcendence and spirituality with the Nietzschean critique of the conventional Christian personality, of the ailing characteristics of mass society, liberalism, and the listless Weimar Republic. Marc also remembered Jaspers as a penetrating critic of liberal democracy who was deferential to Christianity.

Marc admired Jaspers’s Nietzschean Christianity along with Peguy’s Christian heroism, Sorel’s revolutionary mystique, Blondel’s philosophy of action, and Scheler’s communitarian personalism. Marc interested French Nietzscheans with his novel talk about a new philosophy of action respectful of spirituality, and of communitarian values, a radical alternative to both liberal democracy and to Marxism.”
--inbid pp.29-30

As the last paragraph shows, the major premise of this perspective was combining Nietzsche's ubermensch and "will to power" with other similar perspectives that were prevailing within Christian intellectual circles that preached heroic resistance to modern decadence.

For the record, Maurice Blondel was a devout Catholic and you can read more about him and his "philosophy of action" here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/blondel.htm

Ok now discuss.

nätdeutsch
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 09:12 PM
i dont think nietzsche and most religions are compatible because nietzsche basically assumes that justice is swayed, guilt and wrong are made up, and morals are baseless.

thats just my take, i dont really like him, but cool post!

plus, i just dont like his philosophy :)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 09:20 PM
i dont think nietzsche and most religions are compatible because nietzsche basically assumes that justice is swayed, guilt and wrong are made up, and morals are baseless.

LOL yeah, but in following the logic presented by Jaspers, I'd say you're taking Nietzsche too literally!! :P

The fact numerous Christian thinkers have actually found inspiration in him certainly shows that on some level they are compatible. Of course that means placing greater emphasis on some aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy and disregarding other aspects.



thats just my take, i dont really like him, but cool post!

plus, i just dont like his philosophy :)

Yeah I understand how you feel. ;)

Horagalles
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 09:30 PM
More on Communitarianism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

Nietzsches view on christianity:

... I go back, I tell the genuine history of Christianity.— The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding—, in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "evangel" died on the cross. What has been called "evangel" from that moment was actually the opposite of that which he had lived: "ill tidings," a dysangel. It is false to the point of nonsense to find the mark of the Christian in a "faith," for instance, in the faith in redemption through Christ: only Christian practice, a life such as he lived who died on the cross, is Christian ... Such a life is still possible today, for certain people even necessary: genuine, original Christianity will be possible at all times ... Not a faith, but a doing; above all, a not doing of many things, another state of being ...
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/antig.htm

nätdeutsch
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 09:40 PM
nietzsche said in the gay science that "though the judge believed in the guilt of witchery, and even the witch herself, the guilt was nevertheless non-existent"

what this means to me is there that being a witch is not a crime, further translated, that the ideas that society says are wrong are not wrong, and are just social constructs.

i just dont agree with it, but cool post, again.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Wow this was made thread of the day. Last time a thread I started earned that title was when I posted about the Christian influences on Norse paganism. ;)

Anyways back to topic........somebody on another forum posted this commentary by Fr. Seraphim Rose, which has great relevance to the topic at hand:



In his youth he was a Protestant seminary student and came to hate Christianity because he saw in it the principle of weakness. This, of course, was true because Luther had taken out of Christianity the idea of ascetic struggle and left it something very weak which does not satisfy either the mind or the heart ... Nietzsche could see no one who was struggling, no great ascetics, no heroes of Christianity ... and saw [modern Christianity] as simply a way of keeping people quiet and satisfied with their lot, and he said that was for the herds...

Nietzsche himself was filled with the highest natural instincts for nobility and struggle. He was a great student of Greek literature ... Until his time people regarded Greece as the home of the classical tradition of Apollo, but he said no, that Greece was also filled with striving, with the romantic feeling which he symbolized by Dionysius. And this is what he wanted, to be like Dionysius, constantly striving, struggling for something higher...

Atheism, true existential atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God Whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men, and it has more than once been known to end in a blinding vision of Him Whom the real atheist truly seeks. It is Christ Who works in these souls.... Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ....

The answer to Nietzsche's Superman is St. Anthony the Great, who did overcome mankind (his own human nature) and was like an angel on earth." (Not of This World: The Life and Teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose by Monk Damascene Christensen)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Here's a very interesting essay concerning Nietzsche's views on Christ.
http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/religiousstu/writings/rodkey2.html

And it states in the conclusion:


"...Nietzsche clearly has pronounced separate judgements upon the man Jesus of Nazareth and the religion that is believed to be loosely based on Jesus' life, Christianity. To Nietzsche, Jesus was a great man worthy of respect, perhaps even an Übermensch; Christianity, however, is corrupt insofar as the fathers of the church institutionalized the teachings of Jesus in an act of hostility towards the Jews. Furthermore, Nietzsche believes that Christianity has become the very establishment against which Jesus rebelled in Judaism: an already corrupt, stagnant, static, hierarchial religion."

"Nietzsche stopped short (an astonishing fact!) before the figure of Jesus."
--Karl Jaspers

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 10:02 PM
Nietzsche could see no one who was struggling, no great ascetics, no heroes of Christianity ... and saw [modern Christianity] as simply a way of keeping people quiet and satisfied with their lot, and he said that was for the herds...


This is the basic the perspective of Nietzschean Christianity, as I explained above. The faith of Christ has degraded beyond belief, it lacks the vigour and strength of the faith founded by Christ and practiced by the great mystics and saints. It's now a passive, effeminate, medicore force in the world. Now, Nietzsche's explaination of how and why this came about is really off the wall, but the basic diagnosis of the situation is correct.

The French Catholic essayist and polemicist Charles Peguy made similar pronouncements on the degraded nature of modern Christianity(Catholicism specifically):


http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0063.html

"For Péguy, the root of any mystique was remaining fidèle (faithful) to truth and justice despite party commitments...The Catholic Church seemed to have betrayed its mystique by becoming a temporal party in France and elsewhere. Péguy thought that if it dropped clerical politics and returned to its spiritual greatness and concern for the poor, the Church would enter into a period of massive renaissance. Fidelity to the Gospel, which in the realm of mystiques did not exclude what was noble and good in other traditions, now became the overruling passion of his life."

So the key here people is for Christianity to return to its roots and rediscover its long forgotten strength and vitality.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Somebody elsewhere asked me to explain a little bit further the idea of a "Christian Ubermensch" and this is what I replied:

Long story short - the Christian ubermensch is basically a Nietzschean twist to Kierkegaard's "True Christian" or his "Knight of Faith"(although that's a bit extreme).

Like Nietszche, Kierkegaard regarded the majority of people as mindless drones. They have no ethical or still less real religious concerns, they simply want to go through life with as little difificulty as possible. They're Christians only because their parents were or because that's the major religion in society - few of them are Christians because they actively chosed to be so. Still less even really follow Christian teachings. Kierkegaard once remarked that if most Christians met Jesus today, they'd be appalled at how he carried himself along - since he rejected much of the respectability of the world.

The "True Christian" is one rises who above all that. Not only does he actively choose to embrace Christianity, he actively chooses to live out. Yet to do so will mean certain isolation from the rest of society - so a true Christian is one who must live like a monk only within the world(a "monastary of the mind" as he once put it I believe, not sure but it explains the concept).

Now it doesnt take long to see certain similarities between this concept and Nietzsche's ubermensch - a person who heroically rises above the herd to fully embrace a more affirming way of thinking and living. However, Kierkegaard's True Christian tends to direct himself towards the other-worldly, while Nietzsche's ubermensch seeks affirmation in this world.

Hence the Christian Ubermensch or "Knight-Monk" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0773516905?v=glance) as some decided to label it- basically a combination of the other-worldly devotion and mysticism of the monk with the worldly heroism of the knight.

Pervitinist
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Now it doesnt take long to see certain similarities between this concept and Nietzsche's ubermensch - a person who heroically rises above the herd to fully embrace a more affirming way of thinking and living. However, Kierkegaard's True Christian tends to direct himself towards the other-worldly, while Nietzsche's ubermensch seeks affirmation in this world.

Hence the Christian Ubermensch or "Knight-Monk" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0773516905?v=glance) as some decided to label it- basically a combination of the other-worldly devotion and mysticism of the monk with the worldly heroism of the knight.

This seems to me quite contradictory. I think you cannot simply combine or merge the Übermensch with an ascetic who strives for salvation in the afterlife since the two notions - worldly heroism, as you call it and other-worldly devotion - are mutually exclusive when they are taken in a Nietzschean sense.

The Übermensch lives for the moment, being something like a pure manifestation of the will to life and power without looking for any future ends. Also, he does not fight against anything, but is acting only in the sense of affirmation - all "bejahend" and free of all resentment. On the other hand one can hardly imagine a monk or ascetic being completely affirmative of his situation within the world. He acts because he feels the urge to be cleared of primordial sin, he is forced to act - or rather react - through moral pressure coming from his bad conscience.

I cannot see at all how a combination of Kierkegaardian existentialist christianity and the Nietzschean notion of the Übermensch should work out coherently without reducing Nietzsche to a variant of Kierkegaard.

Or did I oversimplify things a bit? :)

Anyway, thanks for this interesting thread as well!

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006, 10:59 PM
Indeed I must admit most people get real confused at this preposition at first sight. It even took me some time to actually comprehend much of this. And it's still a work in progress, so bare with me here. ;)



This seems to me quite contradictory. I think you cannot simply combine or merge the Übermensch with an ascetic who strives for salvation in the afterlife since the two notions - worldly heroism, as you call it and other-worldly devotion - are mutually exclusive when they are taken in a Nietzschean sense.

Well yes if you take either man literally, it shows that they are mutually exclusive. Yet to do so is to ignore the more significant similarities between the two men and their ways of thinking. That was a major point Karl Jaspers sought to outline, and sadly at the moment I cannot quote directly from him. Basically both men stood up against the mediocrity of the world and against formalistic philosophy, and so on. Certainly to different ends, but nevertheless thats what they shared.



I cannot see at all how a combination of Kierkegaardian existentialist christianity and the Nietzschean notion of the Übermensch should work out coherently without reducing Nietzsche to a variant of Kierkegaard.

Well yes, certain aspects of both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard need to be discarded in order to make this project work. The whole point is to focus largely on where the two concepts meet, so that they'll complement each other.

Either way....it's getting late and my mind is beginning to stagnate. So I'll have to continue on this discussion later.



Anyway, thanks for this interesting thread as well!

No problem. I was hoping this topic would generate some insightful discussions. Just think, it forces both Nietzscheans and Christians to challenge old paradigms and beliefs. ;)

Wjatscheslaw
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 05:56 AM
The tendency of gradual passage from Christian camp to the camp of ideological opponents here possible is outlined, since after adopting from Nietzscheanism only concept "Will to the Power" is borrowed all entire idea of Friedrich Nietzsche about the Universe and the Human.
But the association of the opposing ideologies appears absurdly, unless to allow political motives.

Aspire
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Christ's values and behaviour are not at all those of the Ubermensch. Can you draw a distintion between how Jesus literally advocated that people should behave - the example he set - and someone who advocates idealistic anarcho-Communism? Jesus can be respected, as Nietzsche seems to acknowledge, for being an idealist who was not a hypocrit and lived according to his conscience. But that is not the same as advocating Jesus' philosophy.

A belief that we must behave a certain way in order to achieve an afterlife in Heaven is the "no" to life. The Superman is all about the "yes" to life - appreciating what we have here and now.


I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of superterrestrial hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Jesus was a champion of the underdog, just as Communists are. Communists sometimes do this out of naivity, and sometimes because they hate greatness. In any case, the underdog has a natural hatred of their superiors.

Nietzsche warns us of the trap we can fall into by misplaced benevolence:

Because you are gentle and just-minded, you say: "They are not to be blamed for their little existence!" But their little souls think: "All great existence is blameworthy".

Love thy neighbour?

I wish rather that you could not endure to be with any kind of neighbour or with your neighbour's neighbour; then you would have to create your friend and his overflowing heart out of yourselves.

Nietzsche says that prechers of equality are after revenge, and that men are not equal, and they should not become so either.

Christianity is (as is Communism) a

conspiracy against health, beauty, well-constitutedness, bravery, intellect, benevolence of soul, against life itself...

a - Nietzsche, The Antichrist

Drake
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 02:10 PM
This subject is something that currently interests me greatly, and is something that I have given a lot of thought to. As someone who has studied theology at the university level, I have quite good knowledge of Christianity. I think that one cannot truly understand Nietzschean philosophy without a fairly good knowledge of Christian theology.

I think that Nietzsche is correct in almost all of his statements regarding Christianity. In regard to the question of whether one can be a Nietzschean and a Christian is hard to answer, since there are so many different types of "Christianity" and always have been, even prior to the formation of the orthodoxy in response to Gnostic and Docetic influences in the second and third centuries. But, if one takes Christianity to signify the mainstream, orthodox version of Christianity, meaning the institutionalized version, then it would not seem to be possible.

I think that Nietzsche's theory about it being a slave morality is perhaps true, meaning that it was a creation of weaker individuals wishing to reduce the power of the heroic and industrious. This type of moral institutionalization was completely antithetical to Jesus' original teachings; Jesus was incredibly heroic and extraordinary, and he exhorted people to follow him in his heroism.

Many of his moral teachings were based on ascertaining the essential meaning of a certain action and placing its value upon that, rather than the external manifestation, which he often regarded as meaningless. There are so many examples of this, f.e. many of the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, his refutation of the law's requirements about eating certain foods, his statements to the Pharisees about performing certain actions on the Sabbath, etc. In all of these cases, he was creating his own moral interpretation and his own morality, rather than relying on the narrow and destitute moral teachings of the scribes and teachers of the law. Also, many of his teachings were extremely demanding, so much so that very few were willing to follow him. This extreme, heroic if you will, aspect of his teaching has been minimized with its institutionalization, so that it has become the antithesis of what it originally was. Jesus rebelled against the status quo morality of the temple system of his day. That is indeed why he was killed.

I never have been part of, nor enamored of, the institutional form of Christianity. I first embraced Christianity of my own will when I was in my early teens. A small group of friends I had were all Christian, though not the type that sung in the choir. We lived in the real world, never shunned violence, and had extraordinary experiences. And we expressed our love of Christ with tattoos rather than false piety and moralizing. And we looked out for each other, just as the original disciples did. We were more like the original Christians than all of the Pat Robertsons of today.

The simple fact is God as such is no longer something that can be accepted as in days gone by. All the theories about Young Earth Creationism as "proven by science" and such are cute, but not something that many take seriously. God is dead, and it is therefore necessary to find a new morality, one that is not dogmatic and dead, but is malleable and alive, as that which was originally pronounced by Jesus of Nazareth.

I think that almost anything that is institutionalized will always lead to herd psychology and the tendency to strive for what is lower. One of the few exceptions to this is National Socialism, though even so, it can take on that character, particularly today. The simple fact is that extraordinary people are rare, people that can break off from the herd and in fact not only want to, but have no other choice based on their intrinsic personality. To such people, life (as experienced by the vast majority of people) seems an absurd joke, perhaps not even worth living. Thus, the striving for the Ubermensch is not something that can ever be institutionalized. It will always remain on the fringes of humanity. Humanity is something that must be overcome, therefore those who realize this must stand aside and look painfully at what must ultimately become a thing of the past.

Moody
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 06:41 PM
"Nietzschean Christianity": This is probably one of the most neglected aspects of Nietzschean discussions, and hopefully this will help bring light to it.

I have always been struck by Nietzsche's formulation of a

"Christ-souled Roman Caesar".

['The Will to Power',983]

Karl Jaspers described this formulation as a "most amazing attempt" by Nietzsche "to bring into a higher unity" elements that "he had first separated and opposed to each other".

It is also a 'beyonding', as in his more famous formula 'beyond good & evil'.

Nietzsche goes 'beyond Christ & Caesar', and this is the Ubermensch.

See earlier threads here which touched on this;
See post #2 etc.,
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2226&styleid=41

Also, see post #5;
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=1595


One major theme of the non-conformists, and its leader Alexandre Marc, was that the Nietzschean "will to power" could be an effective tool that would help to add more vigour and vitality to the Christian faith, which had degenerated due to Bourgeois decadence and mediocrity. Emmanuel Mounier, another leading intellectual in this movement, even openly referred to his variation of this concept as "Ubermensch Christianity".

I have wondered whether 'Odinism' is not a disguised version of such a thing, in the sense that some Heathens make a huge mistake in convincing themselves that they are polytheists etc., when they have rather just Aryanised Christianity and called it 'Odinism' instead, with Odin as God, and Balder being the Son of God, with Ragnarok as Armageddon etc., etc.,

This ties in with CG Jung's oftmentioned contention that Nietzsche's Zarathustra and Dionysos were really versions of Odin [or Wotan].


“Marc was of a generation of Nietzschean Catholics for whom friends were more important than the institutional Church, who found people who wrote about Jesus more interesting than Christians, and who saw nothing fundamentally incompatible between fascism or national socialism and the gospel teachings."


And here is a significant realisation that I have just had; National Socialism/Fascism are both more compatible with Monotheisms [such as 'Odinism'] than they are with Polytheisms.

A world-view which says 'One Empire, One People, One Leader', must needs say 'One God, One Saviour, One Prophet' etc.,



i dont think nietzsche and most religions are compatible because nietzsche basically assumes that justice is swayed, guilt and wrong are made up, and morals are baseless.


I think Nietzsche says that "there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena" [BGE 108].

Therefore, while morality does not have a transcendent justification, it has an interpretative one based on Nietzsche's philosophy of Perspectivism.

In this one's morality is the result of one's world-outlook, position and Blood [hence Nietzsche's favoured Master Morality].


The Christian ubermensch is basically a Nietzschean twist to Kierkegaard's "True Christian" or his "Knight of Faith" ...
... a true Christian is one who must live like a monk only within the world (a "monastary of the mind" as he once put it I believe, not sure but it explains the concept).
Now it doesnt take long to see certain similarities between this concept and Nietzsche's ubermensch - a person who heroically rises above the herd to fully embrace a more affirming way of thinking and living. However, Kierkegaard's True Christian tends to direct himself towards the other-worldly, while Nietzsche's ubermensch seeks affirmation in this world.

And it is in the worldly doctrines of Amor fati and 'The Eternal Recurrence of the Same' that Nietzsche finds the key to that affirmation.
Another old thread touching on this;
http://forums.skadi.net/archive/index.php/t-2790.html

These are pagan notions, not Christian ones - likewise Nietzsche's rejection of Pity and his afirmation of Master Morality are anti-Christian.


Christ's values and behaviour are not at all those of the Ubermensch. Can you draw a distintion between how Jesus literally advocated that people should behave - the example he set - and someone who advocates idealistic anarcho-Communism? Jesus can be respected, as Nietzsche seems to acknowledge, for being an idealist who was not a hypocrit and lived according to his conscience. But that is not the same as advocating Jesus' philosophy.
A belief that we must behave a certain way in order to achieve an afterlife in Heaven is the "no" to life. The Superman is all about the "yes" to life - appreciating what we have here and now.

You are right there - but then we are dealing with the Christ of the Gospels and the Christ of Paul's version of Christianity.

In other words we are dealing with a mythologised figure who can be de-mythologised, and then re-mythologised.

A Semiticised figure who can be de-Semiticised, and then Aryanised.

So the Christ archetype - a Sun-God type figure - can then be reformulated into an Aryan Christ, or 'Krist', as Wiligut has it.

The Aryan Christ is re-mythologised by Aryans, drawing on the Aryan Sun-Myths and the Christian influences found in the Eddas, Arthurian Cycles etc., which can be translated back.

This is the Christ who said that he came not to bring peace but a sword; the Christ who cast the money-lenders out of the Temple etc.,
The Odin-Krist, the Balder-Krist, the Caesar-Krist.

This is a fundamental Transvaluation of Christianity where the Bible is translated into the Eddas, Sagas, Virgilian Epic and Zarathsutra.



The simple fact is God as such is no longer something that can be accepted as in days gone by. All the theories about Young Earth Creationism as "proven by science" and such are cute, but not something that many take seriously. God is dead, and it is therefore necessary to find a new morality, one that is not dogmatic and dead, but is malleable and alive, as that which was originally pronounced by Jesus of Nazareth.

But was a belief in God always indentical to a morality?
I doubt it.
One can have a moral code and yet believe in no God [and vice versa]. Haven't God and Morality rather been lumped together out of convenience rather than out of necessity?


I think that almost anything that is institutionalized will always lead to herd psychology and the tendency to strive for what is lower...
The simple fact is that extraordinary people are rare, people that can break off from the herd and in fact not only want to, but have no other choice based on their intrinsic personality...
Thus, the striving for the Ubermensch is not something that can ever be institutionalized. It will always remain on the fringes of humanity. Humanity is something that must be overcome, therefore those who realize this must stand aside and look painfully at what must ultimately become a thing of the past.

But Nietzsche recognised that the Herd are necessary, and that the Herd need to have what Plato called holy lies.

This is more true today than it ever was.

Within that necessary institutionalised system you have an elite Order [such as the SS in National Socialism, the Jesuits in Catholicism etc.,] who carry out and carry-forward the real cutting-edge spirituality.

Out of the Order will arise the Overhumans - the Master Race.

That elite Order is manned by Free Spirits who cannot be institutionalised as they are creators of institutions - and creators of Morality too!

SuuT
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 09:17 PM
No.

"...Here I barely touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity. The first thing necessary to its solution is this: that Christianity is to be understood only by examining the soil from which it sprung--it is not a reaction against Jewish instincts; it is their inevitable product; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic of the Jews. In the words of the Saviour, "salvation is of the Jews." --The second thing to remember is this: that the psychological type of the Galilean is still to be recognized, but it was only in its most degenerate form (which is at once maimed and overladen with foreign features) that it could serve in the manner in which it has been used: as a type of the Saviour of mankind.
--The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be at any price: this price involved a radical falsification of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves against all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been permitted to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to natural conditions--one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a contradiction of its natural significance. We meet with the same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only as a copy: the Christian church, put beside the "people of God," shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that Christianity is no more than the final consequence of Judaism..." (Nietzsche: Der Antichrist)

Read three books.

1.) The Geneaology of Morals
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm

2.) Der Antichrist
http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

3.) The New Testament
http://online.recoveryversion.org/toc.html

If it's not obvious after that, I have a Unicorn I'm trying to rid myself of--PM me with an offer.

One good apple does not unspoil the bunch.

5,000 good apples amidst a bunch of 1.3 billiondoes not unspoil the bunch, either.

Nietzsche and Christianity = Oil and water.

Moreover, Jesus Christ has nothing to do with Aryan solar myths: to say so is indemonstrable, foolishly desensitised, surreal and angering blather.

Arrian
Thursday, September 7th, 2006, 09:34 PM
And here is a significant realisation that I have just had; National Socialism/Fascism are both more compatible with Monotheisms [such as 'Odinism'] than they are with Polytheisms.

A world-view which says 'One Empire, One People, One Leader', must needs say 'One God, One Saviour, One Prophet' etc.,


No, I don't think so. NS/Fascism played down religion as a realm of the personal and raised the State and love for it almost as the new religion. In Plato’s Crito, the State is as the father of the people, it is patria, and to bring any ruin to it would be like annihilating one's own Blood and family.

I think NS/Fascism suit polytheism or monism more because these allow for the worship of the state as our god and our blood as our faith. And particular to NS/Fascism, the state is already a duality, it is a nation too. So even worshipping the state cannot be called monotheistic in that strict sense.

Drake
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 05:29 AM
And it is in the worldly doctrines of Amor fati and 'The Eternal Recurrence of the Same' that Nietzsche finds the key to that affirmation.

These are pagan notions, not Christian ones - likewise Nietzsche's rejection of Pity and his afirmation of Master Morality are anti-Christian.
I would agree that many Nietzchean concepts are anti-Christian as such, but they likewise coincide with many of Jesus' original teachings. The Christian glorification of weakness and pity is largely a fabrication ex post facto. Christ was not weak; he was extraordinarily strong to stand up to the Jewish leaders and the moral constructs of his time, which were much more powerful. Some try to identify weakness in his teaching, but he never demanded weakness from his followers, but always strength.





Christ's values and behaviour are not at all those of the Ubermensch. Can you draw a distintion between how Jesus literally advocated that people should behave - the example he set - and someone who advocates idealistic anarcho-Communism? Jesus can be respected, as Nietzsche seems to acknowledge, for being an idealist who was not a hypocrit and lived according to his conscience. But that is not the same as advocating Jesus' philosophy.
A belief that we must behave a certain way in order to achieve an afterlife in Heaven is the "no" to life. The Superman is all about the "yes" to life - appreciating what we have here and now.

You are right there - but then we are dealing with the Christ of the Gospels and the Christ of Paul's version of Christianity.

In other words we are dealing with a mythologised figure who can be de-mythologised, and then re-mythologised.

A Semiticised figure who can be de-Semiticised, and then Aryanised.
@Aspire: The fact that Jesus was capable of rejecting the morality of the establishment and creating his own morality establish him as a type of Ubermensch. You cannot apply such notions as "anarcho-Communism" to the supposed view of the Ubermensch, because those are fixed, dogmatic ideologies, which is antithetical to the views of the Ubermensch. The Ubermensch is characterized by freedom (from ideologies), and the adoption of moral valuations based on his own interpretation of phenomena, i.e. the will to power. Jesus was very much like the Ubermensch, f.e. his glorification of placing little value on material things, which is equivalent to the gift-giving virtue, as explained in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra."

Also, it is true that Nietzsche disagreed with Jesus' statements about an afterlife, though he maintained that Jesus would have changed his position about that if he had lived longer. It's an interesting question.

The question of having to "behave a certain way in order to achieve an afterlife" is something that is debated theologically; some take the position that we are saved solely based on faith in Christ (justification by faith), based on Pauline theology, while others maintain that both faith and works are necessary, based on the epistle of James. It is my opinion that the latter represents herd-Christianity, wherein the religious hierarchy wish to exert dominance by maintaining the necessity of acting in accordance with a strict moral code. That is what Christianity has become, and it does not accord with the spirit of Jesus teachings, who maintained that if you feel a certain way, you will act a certain way of your own free will, and that is the judge of who you are. They are antithetical.

@Moody: I believe that Jesus was more Aryan than Semitic, being a Galilean, and therefore more Greek than Jewish.

But was a belief in God always indentical to a morality?
I doubt it.
One can have a moral code and yet believe in no God [and vice versa]. Haven't God and Morality rather been lumped together out of convenience rather than out of necessity?
It is true that one can have a moral code and not believe in God, though those who maintain that one must adhere to a strict moral code, such as Christian conservatives, do so by maintaining that God exists. That is their justification for imposing a moral code on people, and likewise, their belief in God means nothing more than that it requires people to live a certain way; it has nothing to do with love or transcendence, but only control. This is evidenced in the denial of the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch; if the Pentateuch were written by numerous people and synthesized during the Babylonian exile, it would seem that God never gave these commands to Moses on Mount Sinai, and for all practical purposes, there is no God, or at least no Yahweh. The only reason they maintain the existence of God is to control people. I won't say that this has always been the case; the belief in God was perhaps originally created in order to entreat him to send forth rain for one's crops.

Certainly, morality can exist without God.

Moody
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 02:31 PM
Moreover, Jesus Christ has nothing to do with Aryan solar myths: to say so is indemonstrable, foolishly desensitised, surreal and angering blather.

Then you are unaware of the significance of Christmas Day;

"For several hundred years the various Christian churches celebrated the birthday of their saviour on different dates ... It was not until 345 AD that December 25th was chosen as the anniversary of the birthday of the Christ.
"Why December 25th?..
"The Church that established December 25 was the Church of Rome ...
"The ancient Romans had a marvelous & hedonistic festival called Saturnalia ... for the whole week, from December 17th to the 24th no work was done ..." while on December the 25th was celebrated the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun"

Another religion popular in ancient Rome was that of Mithraism; "Mithra was an Aryan Sun God" ...

Being originally Persian, Mithras has a connection with Zarathustra.

Mithras' birthday was celebrated by his devotees on (you guessed it!) - December the 25th!

Of course, the use of mistletoe at Christmas brings in the myth of Baldr, the Norse Sun God, too.

The parallels of the various Aryan Sun Gods are all too obvious, as is the fact that The Christ was assimilated to them.

Sun Worship:
http://smithbrad.nventure.com/sunworship.htm
Christ Myth:
http://www.uuman.org/ed_christmyth.htm
Christmas Traditions:
http://www.a-traditional-christmas.com/html/origins-of-christmas-traditions.html
Krishna, Buddha, Christ:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Apollo/Christ:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html

Titcomb's classic book, Aryan Sun Myths gives mountains of evidence to connect a whole panopoly of Aryan Sun Gods with The Christ.

http://www.anotherbookshop.com/book.php?products_id=1585090697


NS/Fascism ... raised the State and love for it almost as the new religion.

And this is my point - there was only One State and only One Leader of that State. If that State was a "religion" as you say, then it would have to be called monotheistic, which is a religious monism.


I think NS/Fascism suit polytheism or monism more because these allow for the worship of the state as our god and our blood as our faith.

You contradict yourself there; polytheism is not a monism; monotheism is a monism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monism&x=33&y=20


And particular to NS/Fascism, the state is already a duality, it is a nation too.

Surely the State and the Nation are One and the same in NS/Fascism?
There should be no "duality", let alone a plurality.

SuuT
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 06:37 PM
Then you are unaware of the significance of Christmas Day;

"For several hundred years the various Christian churches celebrated the birthday of their saviour on different dates ... It was not until 345 AD that December 25th was chosen as the anniversary of the birthday of the Christ.
"Why December 25th?..
"The Church that established December 25 was the Church of Rome ...
"The ancient Romans had a marvelous & hedonistic festival called Saturnalia ... for the whole week, from December 17th to the 24th no work was done ..." while on December the 25th was celebrated the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun"

What else was going on around 345 AD? Hmmmm....

Another religion popular in ancient Rome was that of Mithraism; "Mithra was an Aryan Sun God" ...

Which has nothing to do with 'the Christ Jesus' and was the other top competitor of the time for religio-moral domination.

Being originally Persian, Mithras has a connection with Zarathustra.

Mithras' birthday was celebrated by his devotees on (you guessed it!) - December the 25th!

And?

Of course, the use of mistletoe at Christmas brings in the myth of Baldr, the Norse Sun God, too.

And?

The parallels of the various Aryan Sun Gods are all too obvious, as is the fact that The Christ was assimilated to them.

This is an anachronistic inversion: they were assimilated to the Jewish Christ.

Sun Worship:
http://smithbrad.nventure.com/sunworship.htm
Christ Myth:
http://www.uuman.org/ed_christmyth.htm
Christmas Traditions:
http://www.a-traditional-christmas.com/html/origins-of-christmas-traditions.html
Krishna, Buddha, Christ:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm
Apollo/Christ:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html

Titcomb's classic book, Aryan Sun Myths gives mountains of evidence to connect a whole panopoly of Aryan Sun Gods with The Christ.

http://www.anotherbookshop.com/book.php?products_id=1585090697




Goodness, that’s a lot of information.

Are you serious?

You cannot toss out the necessary connections and assimilations that were made of Paganism, Heathenism, and Arya to Christianity and give someone an “ah HA!—Christ Jesus may very well be the light of the world after all!” (Yes, you may recognise this as hyperbole--the point is still made.)

Titcomb almost makes the similar mistake.

So, you are logically correct that, yes, the ‘Christ Jesus’ has something to do with the Aryan Sun mythos. So I make the following correction:

The Aryan Sun mythos has nothing to do with the ‘Christ Jesus.’

It was used to candy-coat a bitter pill.


And Nietzsche and Christianity still result in a bastard when conjoined.

(Not my debate, but...):

Quote: Arrian
I think NS/Fascism suit polytheism or monism more because these allow for the worship of the state as our god and our blood as our faith.

Quote: Moody
You contradict yourself there; polytheism is not a monism; monotheism is a monism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...nism&x=33&y=20 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monism&x=33&y=20)

Monism is often seen as partitioned into three different kinds:

1.) Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical.

2.) Idealism or phenomenalism, which holds the converse.

3.) Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third substance, or energy.

Certain other positions are hard to pigeonhole into the above categories, including:

1.) Functionalism, like materialism, holds that the mental can ultimately be reduced to the physical, but also holds that all critical aspects of the mind are also reducible to some substrate-neutral "functional" level. Thus something need not be made out of neurons to have mental states. This is a popular stance in cognitive science and artificial intelligence.

2.) Eliminativism, which holds that talk of the mental will eventually be proved as unscientific and completely discarded. Just as we no longer follow the ancient Greeks in saying that all matter is composed of earth, air, water, and fire, people of the future will no longer speak of "beliefs", "desires", and other mental states. A subcategory of eliminativism is radical behaviourism, a view held by B. F. Skinner.)

3.) Anomalous monism, a position proposed by Donald Davidson in the 1970s as a way to resolve the Mind-body problem. It could be considered (by the above definitions) either physicalism or neutral monism. Davidson holds that here is only physical matter, but that all mental objects and events are perfectly real and are identical with (some) physical matter. But physicalism retains a certain priority, inasmuch as (1) All mental things are physical, but not all physical things are mental, and (2) (As John Haugeland puts it) Once you take away all the atoms, there's nothing left. This monism was widely considered an advance over previous identity theories of mind and body, because it does not entail that one must be able to provide an actual method for redescribing any particular kind of mental entity in purely physical terms. Indeed there may be no such method; this is a case of nonreductive physicalism, or perhaps emergent physicalism/materialism.

For some, monism may also have religious/spiritual implications. Recognizing this, some inveigh against the 'dangers of monism,' asserting that in order to resolve all things to a single substrate, one dissolves God in the process.

Others say that the "single substrate" is God. Theological arguments can be made for this within Christianity, for example the Roman Catholic doctrine of "divine simplicity", as well as in many other religions (Hinduism and Judaism in particular).

Polytheism can indeed be monistic: all the gods would simply be of the same substance; while still representing disparate archetypes, modes, and existentialities (as in Hinduism).

Moody
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 12:26 PM
So I make the following correction:
The Aryan Sun mythos has nothing to do with the ‘Christ Jesus.’
It was used to candy-coat a bitter pill.
And Nietzsche and Christianity still result in a bastard when conjoined.

You miss the point of this thread which is about 'Nietzschean Christianity'.

There is a difference between what is 'Nietzsche' per se, and what is Nietzschean, because only Nietzsche himself was not 'Nietzschean'.

Therefore a 'Nietzschean Christianity' is perfectly possible and was implied by Nietzsche himself when he spoke of the "Christ-souled Roman Caesar", a piece of Nietzsche which you conveniently ignore.

As for "sugar-coating"; who sugar-coated Baldur?

"The ancient Scandinavians had a sun-god, or Saviour, Baldur the Good, son of the Al-fader, Odin ... ['Baldur' means 'lord' or 'beautiful one'] ... who was slain by the sharp thorn of winter, descended into Hel, and rose again to life & immortality ..."
[Titcomb, Aryan Sun Myths]

"Baldur was the most desirable person in all creation - & unlike the rest of the Aesir, he was sweet-natured & gentle ... his radiance filled Asgard with wisdom, companionship & cheerfulness ..."
[McLeish, Myths & Legends]

Note how pity is central to the Baldur myth - 'Hel' will only allow Baldur to return from the dead "if all creation shed one tear for Baldur"

As we know, hard-hearted Loki [in disguise] refuses to weep and so Baldur remains in Hel until the armageddon known as Ragnarok;

"Throughout Ragnarok, the tempestuous battle which will destroy creation as we know it, Baldur will remain imprisoned in the Underworld. But when all the forces of evil have been destroyed, he will be free, & will rule the children of the gods & the new race of mortals for another age of the universe". [ib.,]

You would have to be as blind as [i]Hod not to see the dovetailing of that Aryan Sun God legend with the story of the Christ.

Again, just as we distinguish between 'Nietzsche' and 'Nietzschean', we also distinguish between 'Aryan' and 'Aryanised'.

Christ was Aryanised in Christianity; therefore, Christ can also be Nietzscheanised.

Your objections continually miss the point.

Similarly, I make the point that Fascism and National Socialism, due to their monolithic tendencies are ultimately more compatible with a monistic or monotheistic religious outlook [this is relevant to the present discussion on Christianity].
A piece of blindingly obvious logic borne out by observation.

So you miss the point when you say;


Polytheism can indeed be monistic: all the gods would simply be of the same substance; while still representing disparate archetypes, modes, and existentialities (as in Hinduism).

Speaking of 'Hinduism' as if it were a monolith is fatuous, however.
There are some forms of it which tend towards monothism, yes - and this monistic outlook is given its most extreme expression in monotheism.

The (missed) point is this; a world-outlook which tends towards focusing on a single point [One Leader, One Race etc.,] is more compatible with monism or monotheism than it is with diversity and polytheism.

This is why [monistic] Odinism finds more favour with real Fascists and NS than does [polytheistic] Asatru, which latter tends to focus on diversity and be anti-racist [there are examples of this on the Germanic Heathenry forum here].

How do you gainsay these observations?

SuuT
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 04:50 PM
You miss the point of this thread which is about 'Nietzschean Christianity'.

There is a difference between what is 'Nietzsche' per se, and what is Nietzschean, because only Nietzsche himself was not 'Nietzschean'.

Yes, yes: ianus is not aequivalere. I've not missed this.

What I have done, however, is given anyone interested an opportunity to compare and contrast the 'shoulds and oughts' associated with per se 'Nietzschean Christianity': yellow and blue make green; neither are green.

(some S are P: some influence is bad).

Therefore a 'Nietzschean Christianity' is perfectly possible and was implied by Nietzsche himself when he spoke of the "Christ-souled Roman Caesar", a piece of Nietzsche which you conveniently ignore.

Not "ignoring".

For convenience, give us the context of Nietzsche's "Christ-souled Roman Caesar" and let us way and weigh it against the preponderance of Nietzsche's conclusions as to the affect of Christianity.

As for "sugar-coating"; who sugar-coated Baldur?

"The ancient Scandinavians had a sun-god, or Saviour, Baldur the Good, son of the Al-fader, Odin ... ['Baldur' means 'lord' or 'beautiful one'] ... who was slain by the sharp thorn of winter, descended into Hel, and rose again to life & immortality ..."
[Titcomb, Aryan Sun Myths]

"Baldur was the most desirable person in all creation - & unlike the rest of the Aesir, he was sweet-natured & gentle ... his radiance filled Asgard with wisdom, companionship & cheerfulness ..."
[McLeish, Myths & Legends]

Note how pity is central to the Baldur myth - 'Hel' will only allow Baldur to return from the dead "if all creation shed one tear for Baldur"

As we know, hard-hearted Loki refuses to weep and so Baldur remains in Hel until the armageddon known as Ragnarok;

"Throughout Ragnarok, the tempestuous battle which will destroy creation as we know it, Baldur will remain imprisoned in the Underworld. But when all the forces of evil have been destroyed, he will be free, & will rule the children of the gods & the new race of mortals for another age of the universe". [ib.,]

You would have to be as blind as [I]Hod not to see the dovetailing of that Aryan Sun God legend with the story of the Christ.

First, thank you for reversing your anachronism.

Second, yes, this version does appear to combine precisely and harmoniously to the fable of the Christ Jesus so long as one completly dismisses the entire affective psychology of the Northern Tradition relative to affective psychology of christianity. Moreover, "pity" does not follow even from the proleptic associations you have made: "loss" and "sacrifice" are far more appropriate.

Third, as we know, Ragnarok, was heavily infuenced ex post facto by christianity: Christianity flavours everything after roughly 345 AD, a date which you have conveniently ignored.



Again, just as we distinguish between 'Nietzsche' and 'Nietzschean', we also distinguish between 'Aryan' and 'Aryanised'.

My answers to this are implied in the above, as well as elsewhere in the forum. In short, if one holds a superior as superior; and willfully blends it to that which the same one holds as inferior, for whatever reason, the result is not a superior superior; but a superior inferior: a retrogression has taken place for the superior; a progression has taken place for the inferior--we are not creating DISTANCE, we are, however, participants in the creation of a hybrid MEAN.

... Christ can also be Nietzscheanised.

Sure!--chimps and binobos can produce fertile offspring.

The most Nordic woman and an indonesian pygmy can do the same:

[I]Should they?

...

Similarly, I make the point that Fascism and National Socialism, due to their monolithic tendencies are ultimately more compatible with a monistic or monotheistic religious outlook [this is relevant to the present discussion on Christianity].
A piece of blindingly obvious logic borne out by observation.


...

The (missed) point is this; a world-outlook which tends towards focusing on a single point [One Leader, One Race etc.,] is more compatible with monism or monotheism than it is with diversity and polytheism.

Well, we shall have to channel the spirit of Hitler on this one, as he disagrees with you.

"To each man his own private superstition."

Again, I've not missed the point. Your assertion simply needs conditions beyond one one one one one one, ad infinitum.

...[monistic] Odinism finds more favour with real Fascists and NS than does [polytheistic] Asatru, which latter tends to focus on diversity and be anti-racist [there are examples of this on the Germanic Heathenry forum here].

I've noticed this as well.

How do you gainsay these observations?

Disclaimer: No Moody Lawless' were harmed in the making of this post. Any resemblance between this and other posts, or threads, living or dead, is unintended and entirely incidental.

Arrian
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 07:43 PM
http://www.anotherbookshop.com/book.php?products_id=1585090697
And this is my point - there was only One State and only One Leader of that State. If that State was a "religion" as you say, then it would have to be called monotheistic, which is a religious monism.
You contradict yourself there; polytheism is not a monism; monotheism is a monism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monism&x=33&y=20
Surely the State and the Nation are One and the same in NS/Fascism?
There should be no "duality", let alone a plurality.



Mon-ism is the metaphysics that the whole is essentially one principle, has one basic value. There's no notion of command or creator. Mono-theism believes that there is one God and he 'ought' to be worshipped. Monism does not postulate this ought. Monism is not dogmatic - this is my understanding.
So I regard polytheistic faiths as more monistic in essence than monotheism.

As regards the State and the Nation, as pointed out on a post in this forum, not the number of Gods but where the God or Gods stand in relation to the Cosmos that differentiates polytheism from one-godism. For the Monotheists the Cosmos was created by an ever -existing Being outside it (so in this macro-historical level it is nothing more than a mortal creation). For the “Monotheists” Cosmos is a creation that has to obey the laws of its “creator”. For polytheistic Hellenes, for example, the eternal Cosmos emerges always from inside of itself (ΑΝΑΔΥΕΤΑΙ ΑΦ’ ΕΑΥΤΟΥ) and is the creator of all Gods, that obey their own laws.
The Nation that emerges from the State and/or vice-versa is the "one, two or many" emerging from a common principle or value (blood) but having to necessarily manifest themselves with different functionalalities - this is what I meant by "inherent" duality.
Of course you are right, the State and the Nation are One - this is a polytheistic monism. The Celts call this Dli.
In Monotheism, the creator sets himself apart from what he creates - I find this un-Aryan. This is against the idea of the Fuhrership principle.

Moody
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Disclaimer: No Moody Lawless' were harmed in the making of this post. Any resemblance between this and other posts, or threads, living or dead, is unintended and entirely incidental.

1.
Your position has shifted from an initial total rejection of the possibility and existence of a Nietzschean Christianity, to a half-house where you state that such Nietzschean Christianity [admitting that it existeth] "shouldn't" be allowed!
The question remains: why 'shouldn't' it?

2.
The brilliant slogan 'Christ-Souled Roman Caesar' occurs when Nietzsche describes the qualities necessary for the 'Highest Man' who is to be the Philosophical 'Legislator of the Future'.

Such a man must have the qualities of both the Caesars/Napoleon and the soul of Christ, the latter being "mastered" by the former.

This is a feature of the Nietzschean 'Pathos of Distance' and the "multifarious" and "antithetical" nature needed by such Future Philosophers.

The context for the slogan can be found in The Will to Power Book IV ['Discipline & Breeding'], section I ['Order of Rank'], subsection 6 ['The Highest Man as Legislator of the Future'].

The above should indicate what Nietzsche is driving at when he formulates 'Christ-Souled Roman Caesar' near the end of that subsection [aphorism 983 (1884)], which is tantamount to saying 'Nietzschean Christianity'.

3.
That Christ is an Aryan Sun God is no "anachronism", as that mythos is found in all Aryan Sun Gods both long before and after Christianity.

The tell-tale signs in Christianity include features such as the 'halo' of Christ, the 25th December birthday, the 40 days in the wilderness, the crucifixion and the resurrection.
Even the cross itself ['the staff of Apollo'] was an attribute of Aryan Sun Gods long before it was adopted by Christianity.

If you haven't read the book by Titcomb [Aryan Sun Myths] then see this site;
paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/

The agent of the Aryan Sun Myth into Christianity derives from the Essenes;

"The sun-myths were incorporated into the history of Jesus Christ ...
Jesus was an Essene, and ... the Essenes were Buddhists ...
The great missionary effort of Buddhism took place in the time of Asoka, about 307 BC ...
The Buddhist missionaries without doubt, made their way to the Hebrews, who had always shown a great aptitude to adopt the faith of outsiders".
[says Titcomb without a trace of understatement].

Buddhism was an Aryan religion, derived from Hinduism.
See this site for the Essenes;
http://essenes.net/subindexbuddhas.htm

So there are no 'anachronisms' here - both Baldur and the Christ follow the ancient pattern of the Aryan Sun God.


4.
Hitler's position on religion is contradictory, from 'each man his own superstition', as you quote, to his pro-Christian tenor in Mein Kampf, to his anti-Christian utterances in the Table Talk, where he also praises the Christian Saxon-killing monarch Charlemagne, while rejecting Nordic heathenism.

Clearly Fascism/NS did not have enough time to ceate their necessary State Religions.
My contention is that if we as thinkers here were to try and describe the religion ideally suited to such a State, it would be a monistic or montheistic religion.
'Nietzschean Christianity' would therefore be a good contender for that.
And wasn't Zarathustra a Monotheist?
And what of the Caesar cult - this was surely a monist step towards Christian monotheism eventually adopted by the 'Roman Caesars'.



Mon-ism is the metaphysics that the whole is essentially one principle, has one basic value. There's no notion of command or creator.

5.
Monism must be distinguished from dualism and pluralism.

In religious terms, genuine polytheism is the latter (i.e., pluralism) [such as Greek paganism]; while something like Manicheanism is a dualism. Christianity and Buddhism are monisms.

Monism itself is not only a 'metaphysics'; it is rather a principle adhering to 'mon' which means 'one' [suggesting a transcendental unity], and has other applications;

"Monism is the metaphysical and theological view that all is of one essence, principle, substance or energy.
Monism is to be distinguished from dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance.
Monism;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

As monism can be a theological view then it is possible for there to be a notion of one command or one creator included - these would both be monistic concepts within that context.

Likewise, in political monism [what we are touching on here], we have systems like Totalitarianism, One Party States, Fascism and NS.

There is certainly a notion of a creator [or founder] and command [leader] of the Fascist State.
Indeed, the fact that such States often make the year of their founding a 'year zero', or their Leaders' word the ultimate authority [The Fuhrer's word is law] bears this out.

Therefore Political Monism is close to Monotheism.


Mono-theism believes that there is one God and he 'ought' to be worshipped. Monism does not postulate this ought. Monism is not dogmatic - this is my understanding.

But the Fascist State does believe in such 'oughts'.
Political Monism can be dogmatic.

It is certainly dogmatic to say that 'all is one' [=monism].

Theological monism might have some 'oughts', too.

Not all Monotheisms work in the way you suggest:
Pantheism, for example, believes that everything is divine - but it doesn't necessarily say that 'everything' should be worshipped.
Nor does Pantheism necessarily postulate a Creator.
Pantheism
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/history.htm


So I regard polytheistic faiths as more monistic in essence than monotheism.

True of 'Hinduism' and Buddhism', but not true of Germanic Heathenism, for example, which in its original form [and in Asatru today] is genuinely polytheistic - pluralistic - and therefore non-monistic [unlike modern Odinism].

So my point remains that Fascism/NS - being political monisms - have more in common with other monisms and monotheisms than they do with genuine polytheisms, such as European paganism;

"Hinduism and Buddhism are monistic - believing that the universe and all that is in it, including God or gods, are one thing: there is no distinction between Creator and Created. By way of contrast, many of the ancient religions - Egyptian, Greeks, Romans, Vikings - were polytheistic ".
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/mcel/omm/B1003.html

It seems then that NS/Fascism would operate better with Monotheistic religions [such as Christianity] or with Monistic religions [such as Buddhism].

I raise this as it may answer the many questions as to why Rome and barbarian Europe converted to Christianity.


As regards the State and the Nation, as pointed out on a post in this forum, not the number of Gods but where the God or Gods stand in relation to the Cosmos that differentiates polytheism from one-godism. For the Monotheists the Cosmos was created by an ever -existing Being outside it (so in this macro-historical level it is nothing more than a mortal creation).

True - de Benoist On Being a Pagan'] makes this point about Christianity.
However, it needn't be true in every case, as I have already indicated with Pantheism where One God is identical to the Uni-verse.
Indeed, an heretical form of Christianity could be pantheistic.


For the “Monotheists” Cosmos is a creation that has to obey the laws of its “creator”.

Just as the citizens of the Fascist/NS State have to obey their Leader; this is why Monotheism is compatible with that form of political monism - it mirrors it; 'as in Heaven, so in Earth below'.


For polytheistic Hellenes, for example, the eternal Cosmos emerges always from inside of itself (ΑΝΑΔΥΕΤΑΙ ΑΦ’ ΕΑΥΤΟΥ) and is the creator of all Gods, that obey their own laws.

But Greek paganism is not monistic - it is genuinely polytheistic.
Therefore you do not favour polytheistic monism as you originally said, but [b]polytheistic pluralism.


The Nation that emerges from the State and/or vice-versa is the "one, two or many" emerging from a common principle or value (blood) but having to necessarily manifest themselves with different functionalities - this is what I meant by "inherent" duality.
Of course you are right, the State and the Nation are One - this is a polytheistic monism. The Celts call this Dli.

In the NS state the ideal of Blood is a monisitic one, as are all the main principles in such a political monism.
The three functions in Aryan society [and not usually adhered to in Fascism/NS] are 'three-in-one', as von List uses the term, and have something in common with the Trinity [another Aryan Sun Myth feature]which describes three aspects of the monism. They are three functions of the One Race.

Celtic Dli[binding principle, law. That which connects and binds everything, and is found in everything] suggests that the Celtic polytheism is monistic [like Hinduism] and not pluralistic like Germanic Heathenism, and so is an exception amongst European polytheisms, perhaps due to an early Christian influence.


In Monotheism, the creator sets himself apart from what he creates - I find this un-Aryan. This is against the idea of the Fuhrership principle.

Again, this is not true of all Monotheisms.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 06:50 PM
Hmmn I'll have to address much of this thread later...forgive me, work and such have been a consistent drain on my energies, which deprive me from more fully engaging in such discussions.

As for the issue of whether or not Nietzsche and Christianity can come together on some level, I believe that issue has already been settled. The fact remains that Christianity and Nietzscheanism have come in contact with each other in various forms, so it cant be denied. Various Christian thinkers were influenced to some degree or another by Nietzsche, and many Nietzscheans were influenced by various aspects of the Christian tradition(more on that below).

And perhaps it should be noted that "Nietzschean Christianity" is but one of many terms used to describe this intellectual trend(cause it never was a unified school of thought).

Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a trend among many Christian thinkers to think of new and more creative way of expressing the Christian faith. Not rejecting Christian traditions per se, in fact they often upheld them against more Liberal versions of the faith. However, to these men, tradition meant more than just imitating the past - to them tradition had to be expressed creatively. Christianity should be a religion of the heart, not one of dried up old dogmas. As opposed to stale ritualism, they favored more spontaneous expressions of religious devotion - not rejecting rituals per se but doing them more out of a geniune devotion of faith. And of course a more heroic interpretation of how a true Christian should live.

What many Christians soon notice was a certain similarity between many of these concepts and those advocated by Nietzsche. Yes, they dont match up perfectfully, but then again they dont have to. And Nietzsche was not the only influence within this movement. Some of the leading figures of this movement, like Charles Peguy and Leon Bloy(among others), never actually were influenced by Nietzsche at all.

So it's best not to take the term "Nietzschean Christianity" too literally, but rather see it more or less as a new way of looking at the Christian faith altogether.

And this wasnt a one sided thing, as I stated above many Nietzscheans(or at least figures greatly admired by Nietzscheans) admired many aspects of the Christian tradition.

One Christian figure almost universally admired by many Nietzscheans(besides Dostovesky) was St. Ignatius of Loyola.

Oswald Spengler, not a man known to hold a positive view of Christianity, neverthless in his polemic Man and Technics endlessly praised St. Ignatius and his Jesuit order as paragons of the old Nordic sense of heroism and adventure.

Ernst Juenger, another figure prominently admired by many Nietzscheans, was also a deep admirer of St. Igantius. Juenger even considered his Spiritual Excercises as one of the greatest treatises concerning warrior spirituality ever written! St. Igantius, along with the writings of Leon Bloy on Christian heroism, eventually helped convince him to convert to Catholicism towards the end of his life.

And perhaps it should be mentioned that Heinrich Himmler had admiration for St. Igantius' "Black Order". In fact it's been noted that black uniforms of the SS were modelled off the black uniforms of the Jesuit order.

So yes, this was a two-way process.

SuuT
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 07:41 PM
1.
Your position has shifted from an initial total rejection of the possibility and existence of a Nietzschean Christianity, to a half-house where you state that such Nietzschean Christianity [admitting that it existeth] "shouldn't" be allowed!
The question remains: why 'shouldn't' it?

"No."-- (which is what I said) hardly constitutes a "total rejection" of influence. My position has not wavered since my intitial entry excepting the correction I have made with respect to word placement. When we make an argument, we move from the general to the particular: the title of this thread (wisely) calls into question the campatability of a 'christianity' qualified via Nietzschean influence. That I have stayed in connection to applicability by tangentially relating other relavancies not brought up by the creator of this thread does not negate, or diminish, the relavancies raised.

I have entered no "half-house": In fact, I have argued against the one you wish to create.

The question has indeed been answed as to why the two should not be admixed. Here it is once more: "...In short, if one holds a superior as superior; and willfully blends it to that which the same one holds as inferior, for whatever reason, the result is not a superior superior; but a superior inferior: a retrogression has taken place for the superior; a progression has taken place for the inferior--we are not creating DISTANCE, we are, however, participants in the creation of a hybrid MEAN."

As for any other 'why nots' that can be raised, one can look to the man himself (Nietzsche) in the links I have already provided.



2.
The brilliant slogan 'Christ-Souled Roman Caesar' occurs when Nietzsche describes the qualities necessary for the 'Highest Man' who is to be the Philosophical 'Legislator of the Future'.

Such a man must have the qualities of both the Caesars/Napoleon and the soul of Christ, the latter being "mastered" by the former.

This is a feature of the Nietzschean 'Pathos of Distance' and the "multifarious" and "antithetical" nature needed by such Future Philosophers.

The context for the slogan can be found in The Will to Power Book IV ['Discipline & Breeding'], section I ['Order of Rank'], subsection 6 ['The Highest Man as Legislator of the Future'].

The above should indicate what Nietzsche is driving at when he formulates 'Christ-Souled Roman Caesar' near the end of that subsection [aphorism 983 (1884)], which is tantamount to saying (having the greatest amount of conflicting drives that are dominated by a stalwart ordering principle: Nietzsche examples the bard, Shakespeare , NOT'Nietzschean Christianity'.)

3.
That Christ is an Aryan Sun God is no "anachronism", as that mythos is found in all Aryan Sun Gods both long before and after Christianity (there was no new Aryan Sun god postdating the appearance of the christ Jesus).

The tell-tale signs in Christianity include features such as the 'halo' of Christ, the 25th December birthday, the 40 days in the wilderness, the crucifixion and the resurrection.
Even the cross itself ['the staff of Apollo'] was an attribute of Aryan Sun Gods long before it was adopted by Christianity.

...

The agent of the Aryan Sun Myth into Christianity derives from the Essenes;

"The sun-myths were incorporated into the history of Jesus Christ ...
Jesus was an Essene, and ... the Essenes were Buddhists ...
The great missionary effort of Buddhism took place in the time of Asoka, about 307 BC ...
The Buddhist missionaries without doubt, made their way to the Hebrews, who had always shown a great aptitude to adopt the faith of outsiders".
[says Titcomb without a trace of understatement].

Buddhism was an Aryan religion, derived from Hinduism.

...So there are no 'anachronisms' here ...

No. You have now have a correct chronology that supports my statements already made. (See below posts).

4.
Hitler's position on religion is contradictory, from 'each man his own superstition', as you quote, to his pro-Christian tenor in Mein Kampf, to his anti-Christian utterances in the Table Talk, where he also praises the Christian Saxon-kiling monarch Charlemagne, while rejecting Nordic heathenism.

Clearly Fascism/NS did not have enough time to ceate their necessary State Religions.
My contention is that if we as thinkers here were to try and describe the religion ideally suited to such a State, it would be a monistic or montheistic religion.

You are right: there wasn't the time to circumscribe a state religion. However, the statement "to each man..." is supported directly in Mein Kampf, and by Rosenberg, and by Himmler etc.


'Nietzschean Christianity' would therefore be a good contender for that.

Are you ignoring this?: "In short, if one holds a superior as superior; and willfully blends it to that which the same one holds as inferior, for whatever reason, the result is not a superior superior; but a superior inferior: a retrogression has taken place for the superior; a progression has taken place for the inferior--we are not creating DISTANCE, we are, however, participants in the creation of a hybrid MEAN."

You might state, for the record, that you place the philosophy of Nietzsche and the theology et Al. of christianity on level playing fields; and therefore the admixture of these are not detrimental to the principle of distance to which you adhear in aesthetic, gender, moral, caste and matters of the Soul--and yet, as it appears, not in the instance of this 'Nietzschean christianity.'


And wasn't Zarathustra a Monotheist?

No, he wasn't. He was called "...but an old Athiest" by Nietzsche himself. Moreover, Zarathustra tells us that he "could believe only in a god who could and would dance"--not that he, necessarily, even in the instance of a 'dancing' god, would.
...

SuuT
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Incidentally, this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism is one of the worst treatments on monism I have ever seen.

It should also be brought up that "political Monism" has a greater applicability left of center, e.g.:

http://www.ghandchi.com/299-MarxismEng.htm

Furthermore, (directed particularly to Moody) the monistic/monotheist line of reasoning reaches 'critical mass'--and, implodes to the conceptual web-spinning of Spinoza, and ultimately ends in the supernova of Universalist Hermeticism.

These are the consequences of the theological one one one one ad infinitum as applied to "political monism."

Lest we forget: these things are the Strangler Figs of Aryan botany. Not to mention that Nietzsche (he is half of the subject here) was through and through--a (at the least, nominal) polytheist.

Arrian
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 09:07 PM
5. Monism must be distinguished from dualism and pluralism.

In religious terms, genuine polytheism is the latter (i.e., pluralism) [such as Greek paganism]; while something like Manicheanism is a dualism. Christianity and Buddhism are monisms.

Monism itself is not only a 'metaphysics'; it is rather a principle adhering to 'mon' which means 'one' [suggesting a transcendental unity], and has other applications;
As monism can be a theological view then it is possible for there to be a notion of one command or one creator included - these would both be monistic concepts within that context.
Likewise, in political monism [what we are touching on here], we have systems like Totalitarianism, One Party States, Fascism and NS.
There is certainly a notion of a creator [or founder] and command [leader] of the Fascist State.
Indeed, the fact that such States often make the year of their founding a 'year zero', or their Leaders' word the ultimate authority [The Fuhrer's word is law] bears this out.
Therefore Political Monism is close to Monotheism.

The dictionary records the following entry on Monism:

"1. theory of reality as single entity: the philosophical theory that reality is a unified whole and is grounded in a single basic substance or principle"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861630949

When one takes the view of reality being grounded in a "single substance", this tends to monotheism, while taking the view of "single principle" tends towards polytheism.

Genuine pluralistic Greek paganism falls on the latter considering the Hellenic belief of the "Heim Armene" or ΑΝΑΓΚΗ (“Anάngee”), from which the many derive their own characteristic "it-ness". I see Heraclitean beliefs as this type of monistic polytheism - the One + the Many.

"The Cosmos [viewed as the infinite multitude of Universes (conglomerates of matter), within the infinite Space and perpetual Time] has always existed, is self-motivated, self-regulated and ever-changing (evolving).
The Natural Law (in its broadest conception) was never created, but always existed virtually, in the pre-creative state of our Universe, the «unspeakable principium».
The Cosmos (either viewed as the infinite multitude of Universes, or as the World) is a value. So is Man and Life in its broadest conception.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7773/eea4.html


"Our Gods are many and we understand them as completing the make-up of the Universal Sphere of Cosmos to its maximum potential and whole. Thus, for the Hellenes, from the ΔΩΔΕΚΑΕΔΡΟΝ ("Dodekάhedron") geometric shape (that fills up the sphere to its maximum) we imagine twelve planes, each one presenting a God inside the Cosmos and we define our Hellenic ΠΑΝΘΕΟΝ (Pάntheon, ΠΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΘΕΩΝ , All The Gods) as ΔΩΔΕΚΑΘΕΟΝ ("Dodekάtheon", Pantheon of The Twelve Gods).The Twelve Gods of theirs live inside the Shpere of Cosmos and form its various behaviors. In the same way, the twelve Zodiacs represent twelve "energies" that reach Earth."
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17636&highlight=monotheism


Now, NS/Fascism theologically and politically espouse the coming to fruition of one's true nature - that is the means by which one's highest potential can be reached. We have different sub-races (sub-states) with different sub-racial energies that necessarily give birth to different nations and vice-versa. But all this under the common principle/value of the same Blood that overarchs and runs through them all. So the best environment conducive to this kind of NS/Fascist tolerance is this a monistic polytheism.

Also, I am not talking of a pluriform-monotheism:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38215

So, you are right, I am describing pluriform-polytheism, but because I regard reality(s) can be made of the "many" while still functioning under a common principle running through them all, I regard the monism suited to NS/Fascism tending towards polytheism.




It is certainly dogmatic to say that 'all is one' [=monism].

Not as much as saying 'all should be one'.



Theological monism might have some 'oughts', too.

That is the monism tending to monotheism.



Not all Monotheisms work in the way you suggest:
Pantheism, for example, believes that everything is divine - but it doesn't necessarily say that 'everything' should be worshipped.
Nor does Pantheism necessarily postulate a Creator.
Pantheism
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/history.htm

"Pantheism...sees the universe as an integrated whole, a unity operating through the diverse laws of nature." [Gerald Schroeder, The Science of God]

I see this kind of pantheism as monistic and panentheism ("God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe") as more closer to the spirit of Monotheism.



So my point remains that Fascism/NS - being political monisms - have more in common with other monisms and monotheisms than they do with genuine polytheisms, such as European paganism;

While it is still the kind of Monotheism that can be argued as a dualism ('I am' than I-am, 'you are' rather than you-are), I think polytheism or monistic polytheism is in the natural spirit of NS/Fascism.



It seems then that NS/Fascism would operate better with Monotheistic religions [such as Christianity] or with Monistic religions [such as Buddhism].

Buddhism does not espouse one-godism and is in tune with NS/Fascist principles when it says one's self is one's own nature.
In a polytheistic environment, this potential of the various sub-races is maximized under a common uniting and unifying principle of One Blood and One overall Race.


I raise this as it may answer the many questions as to why Rome and barbarian Europe converted to Christianity.

I know Moody. I understand.
Nietzsche remarked that Rome let the herd-religion take over as they saw in Christianity- the best means of taming and yoking them. The rule of the clever. One can even term this machiavellian politics. I have nothing against this piece of Nietzscheanism.
I say the genuine spirit of Ein Reich/Volk/Fuhrer is in monistic polytheism because just like the need for many gods suited to each and the many was implied in the latter, NS/Fascism is a theo-political magnification of that, standing for the Aryan type(s) and the Aryan need(s). We are simultaneously both one and the many.
And if its worth anything to note, Nietzsche called for a christ-souled Caesar, and not a caesar-souled Christ. So, rather than Aryanizing Christianity, I think he meant to induct christianity and channelize it for a Caesar-ian, caesar-ian purposes. This again is another machiavellianism.



Just as the citizens of the Fascist/NS State have to obey their Leader; this is why Monotheism is compatible with that form of political monism - it mirrors it; 'as in Heaven, so in Earth below'.

Since genuine [self/]obeying and [self/]commanding springs from one's own nature, it is in polytheism that encourages this, there can be natural fuhrership and natural allegiance. Heidegger calls this kind of true NS Mon-archy the 'fugue' - the many allegiances fall into place at a uniting point without any coerced compulsion.

Moody
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 01:50 PM
...

It is naive to think that Nietzsche - brought up a strict Christian [known as the 'little pastor' at school because of his devoutness], the son of Protestant Pastors on both sides of his family going back generations - was ever able to make a clean break with Christianity.

Despite his own protestations to the opposite, he remained deeply imbued with Christianity.

Therefore the Christian background of Nietzsche is not "inferior" to his 'pagan' background - it was his inheritance.

His Amor Fati.

And just as it was, in Church history - that Christianity was paganised, rather than paganism that was Christianised - then so in the philosophy of Nietzsche we have a paganised Christianity, because Nietzsche was a Christian first before he was anything else.
Indeed, he remained one to his last semi-sane days identifying himself as the 'crucified'.

Of course, he liked to oppose Dionysos to the 'crucified', but we know from the work of Titcomb ['Aryan Sun Myths'] and others that 'the crucified' was an epithet of the Aryan Sun God, and was applied to both Dionysos and the Christ .

So with the seeming 'oppositions' Christ-Caesar/Dionysos-Christ etc., etc., we just have the widest possible Distance within one man's great and multifarious soul.
This is what Nietzschean Chrisitanity is.

In the same subsection that gives us the christ-souled roman caesar Nietzsche says that the Philosopher of the Future must have a "tremendous multiplicity of qualities; he must be an abstract of man, of all of man's higher & lower desires: danger from antitheses, also from disgust at himself ... he must be just & fair in the highest sense, profound in love & hate - & injustice - too".
[WP 976]

This is the over-all view of Nietzsche's project.

To pick at anti-Christian statements out of context as if that means Nietzsche was completely devoid of Christianity and that he thought that it had no place in his philosophy is shallow.
A philosopher like Nietzsche, who continually expressed contrary Perspectives cannot seriously be treated in such a niggarding way.
His Philosophy only works as a totality.

It is clear from the context of the book 'The Will to Power' that the phrase Christ-souled Roman Caesar represents that Nietzschean totality.

So to stand back and say that a Nietzschean Christianity "shouldn't" be is tantamount to burying your head in the sand.

Nietzsche's strength is that he encompases the equally powerful polarities of Caesar and Christ. 'Polarities' because Nietzsche eschewed what he called "the faith in antithetical values".

Christ and Caesar [and Zarathustra and Dionysos etc.,] are all aspects of the same totality which is Nietzscheanism.

Shakespeare is not mentioned in the subsection we are referring to, although Nietzsche does touch on artists generally. However, the quality he is looking for is not in artists themselves, but rather in the type of work that they produce.
The philosopher of the Future will be a work of art and have the requisite "repose and coldness" which can only be found in a "Caesar" or a "Napoleon" [WP 975].

Therefore we have the spectacle of the Philosopher who combines the hardness of a Caesar with the soulfulness of a Christ.

Again - this is a summit in Nietzsche's philosophy and can only be understood from the appreciation of a totality; not just the totality of the work, but the totality of the Man - Ecce Homo [another Christian reference].

2.
Of course, Zoroastrianism was a Monotheism.
Nietzsche chose to express his version of this in his Zarathustra using Biblical [and monotheistic] language straight out of Luther.

3.
No Aryan Sun Gods post-date Christ? Do you have an earlier version of the Baldur myth tucked away somewhere?
As far as I know the Eddas post-date Christ.
If you have evidence to the contrary then we may be onto a publishing coup.

4.
Due to the contradictory statements issuing from the Third Reich on religion, to play the tiresome game of quoting one statement which supports one view only [such as the NSDAP Programme which says that "the Party as such stands for a positive Christianity"] while ignoring a statement that may support a contrary view [such as the Private Conversations of Hitler/Bormann etc.,] is as useless here as it is with Nietzsche.

Surely we can raise the level of debate beyond this [as we must assume that we have all seen the breadth of evidence in each case] and attempt to discuss the over-arching questions themselves.

To pretend that the hugely interesting subject of the viability of a Nietzschean Christianity in a Fascistic context can be vitiated by such negative positions as "this shouldn't happen because Nietzsche once said this and Hitler once said that" is faintly absurd.

Niether Nietzsche nor Hitler [nor anyone else] completed their projects - the point is to persue any leads that come out from them, and Nietzsche's Christ-souled Roman Caesar and Hitler's Positive Christianity are two such leads that can be examined positively in the space that we have the luxury of enjoying.

5.
Fascism/NS does not adhere to the strict Aryan caste system. It is actually more socialistic [an influence from Christianity], but with the provision for an elite cadre, which in NS was the Black Order or the SS. This too can be compared to Christianity as the SS based themselves on the Order of Teutonic Knights [who were 'Christian'].
A Waffen SS division was named after Hermann von Salza the founder of that Order.

http://www.stupormundi.it/images/hermann_salza.jpg
Hermann von Salza - a 'Nietzschean Christian'?

Waffen SS Units [see under section 11 for mention of H von Salza]
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1516

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/campaign_awards/cufftitles/kurland/wear/15Photo.jpg
Here we can see the Kurland cuffband being worn which has the Teutonic Order shield on it

Hitler is quoted as saying that "I want to set up an Order which shall express & develop the concept of Nordic blood". [speech to SS officers in Metz 1940]

I doubt if Himmler would've got anywhere if he had allowed the negative carping of those who had an extreme aversion to anything 'Christian' to get in his way.

6.

Incidentally, this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism is one of the worst treatments on monism I have ever seen.

Why?


It should also be brought up that "political Monism" has a greater applicability left of center

Fascism and NS are both examples of political monism, and they happen to be applicable to this thread.
You constantly look for an excuse not to look further into something - 'Oh, political monism is Leftist too' - while stating the obvious.

The question of interest here are the links between monisms in Nietzsche, Christianity and Fascism/NS. That is what we should be looking at.


Furthermore, the monistic line of reasoning reaches 'critical mass'--and, implodes to the conceptual web-spinning of Spinoza, and ultimately ends in the supernova of Universalist Hermeticism.

That may happen [and Nietzsche admired Spinoza for quite some time] in many cases and not in others.
Once more you do not want to 'go there' because such and such 'could' happen - you are incredibly negative here - to what end?

We must arrest any tendency of a monism towards universalism - there are many ways to do this, a racialist ideology being the most obvious [the Teutonic Knights only took German recruits for example].


Lest we forget: these things are the Strangler Figs of Aryan botany. Not to mention that Nietzsche (he is half of the subject here) was through and through--a (at the least, [I]nominal) polytheist.

I believe the Aryan plant to be far hardier than you think.
As for Nietzsche being a polytheist [as he sometimes said he was, I agree] it is noticeable that his own 'worship' consisted of a rather monistic fixation upon single figures like Zarathustra, Christ, Dionysos, Socrates, etc.,


The dictionary records the following entry on Monism:
"1. theory of reality as single entity: the philosophical theory that reality is a unified whole and is grounded in a single basic substance or principle"


This is (philosophical) monism with a capital 'M'.
I have been using the term 'monism' to apply broadly in a forum which is not a Philosophy forum, but a Religious one.
Just as you can have 'political monism', you can have 'religious monism'. Indeed, you can have any kind of monism you like as long as it be ... monistic.


When one takes the view of reality being grounded in a "single substance", this tends to monotheism, while taking the view of "single principle" tends towards polytheism.

Monotheism takes the view that there is but one God; this needn't entail the suggestion that there is only one substance.
Similarly, the view that there is a single principle needn't entail polytheism as I have already given the important counter-example of pantheism [which has one God which is identical with the Universe].


Genuine pluralistic Greek paganism falls on the latter considering the Hellenic belief of the "Heim Armene" or ΑΝΑΓΚΗ (“Anάngee”), from which the many derive their own characteristic "it-ness". I see Heraclitean beliefs as this type of monistic polytheism - the One + the Many.

The former being a Religion, the latter being a Philosophy.


Now, NS/Fascism theologically and politically espouse the coming to fruition of one's true nature - that is the means by which one's highest potential can be reached.

Philosophically, yes; but the case for a Fascist/NS Theology has yet to be made.


We have different sub-races (sub-states) with different sub-racial energies that necessarily give birth to different nations and vice-versa. But all this under the common principle/value of the same Blood that overarchs and runs through them all. So the best environment conducive to this kind of NS/Fascist tolerance is this a monistic polytheism.

I agree with you here. Not a pluralistic polytheism, but a monistic one.

However, you are basing this on "sub-races" etc.,
What of a monoracial state? By the same logic wouldn't a monistic monotheism be better!
[And while we're at it - there's another relevant monism called 'Monarchy' too.]


Not as dogmatic as saying 'all should be one'.

What is more dogmatic - an absolute Is, or a provisional [due to it being cast into the unknown] should?


And if its worth anything to note, Nietzsche called for a christ-souled Caesar, and not a caesar-souled Christ. So, rather than Aryanizing Christianity, I think he meant to induct christianity and channelize it for a Caesar-ian, caesar-ian purposes. This again is another machiavellianism.

I agree - and anyway, the Caesar-type does not have a soul - he has only a hard heart.



Since genuine [self/]obeying and [self/]commanding springs from one's own nature, it is in polytheism that encourages this, there can be natural fuhrership and natural allegiance. Heidegger calls this kind of true NS Mon-archy the 'fugue' - the many allegiances fall into place at a uniting point without any coerced compulsion.

But fugues always begin with the statement of a single theme.

Has this Fugue yet begun?

SuuT
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 04:35 PM
I've said my peace.

1.) The Geneaology of Morals
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Niet...ealogytofc.htm (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm)

2.) Der Antichrist
http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

3.) The New Testament
http://online.recoveryversion.org/toc.html

And so has Nietzsche.

"...This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .
And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell--from the first day of Christianity!--Why not rather from its last?--From today?--The transvaluation of all values!..."


THE
END

Drake
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 03:22 PM
As for "sugar-coating"; who sugar-coated Baldur?

"The ancient Scandinavians had a sun-god, or Saviour, Baldur the Good, son of the Al-fader, Odin ... ['Baldur' means 'lord' or 'beautiful one'] ... who was slain by the sharp thorn of winter, descended into Hel, and rose again to life & immortality ..."
[Titcomb, Aryan Sun Myths]

"Baldur was the most desirable person in all creation - & unlike the rest of the Aesir, he was sweet-natured & gentle ... his radiance filled Asgard with wisdom, companionship & cheerfulness ..."
[McLeish, Myths & Legends]

Note how pity is central to the Baldur myth - 'Hel' will only allow Baldur to return from the dead "if all creation shed one tear for Baldur"

As we know, hard-hearted Loki [in disguise] refuses to weep and so Baldur remains in Hel until the armageddon known as Ragnarok;

"Throughout Ragnarok, the tempestuous battle which will destroy creation as we know it, Baldur will remain imprisoned in the Underworld. But when all the forces of evil have been destroyed, he will be free, & will rule the children of the gods & the new race of mortals for another age of the universe". [ib.,]
I see nothing intrinsically wrong or harmful about the concept of pity and grief that is central to the Christian "myth" (I take the gospels virtually at face value). This view is also applied to the Baldur myth, which I hold, as many others do, as the most beautiful story in Norse mythology. When viewed purely in terms of aesthetics, the Christ story rises high above many others. The crucifixion of Christ, being a mythologized event that nevertheless actually took place, thereby becomes a living work of art. This interpretion and theory is something that I have considered for several years, and led to my creation of a speculative philosophical system, which I would like to rework someday.

When viewed simply as a work of art, either in itself or in its (visual, literary, or musical) representation, it is utterly sublime. There do not necessarily have to be any implications attached to this, just as there do not have to be in one's emotional response to the Baldur myth. Only when theological underpinnings are developed and institutionalized does it then have some effect on one's life, either for good or ill, depending on how one views this. And in fact, it could entail many different implications, such as the belief among many Gnostics that the angelic Christ-being departed the host body of Jesus prior to his death on the cross, and that Jesus' death therefore held no significance in soteriological terms.

I do not even feel that the belief in the atoning sacrifice of the crucifixion is harmful in itself. That is why I hold Pauline theology higher than Judaistic-Christian theology, in that Paul maintained that Christ ended the law, that it was nailed to the cross, etc. However, it can be very effectively used to manipulate people and strip them of their freedom and their will to rise above suffering, fear, negativity, and the like. Much of Christianity, particularly conservative strains, is more Jewish than Christian and is more concerned with works and adherence to the law than faith in Christ, in spite of the fact that Paul made very clear that Christians are not under the law, as here in Romans 7:4-6:

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Paul also shows very clearly how the law, and the acknowledgment of an ossified moral code, leads to degenerate urges and the striving for what is lower:

I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

The focus on "sinfulness" and such is more responsible for inducing those actions than any intrinsic characteristics of man. The human will is capable of anything and rising above anything. Only the belief that we are essentially sinful makes us so.

In other words, the Golgotha event can be completely divorced from ethics, even if one accepts the theological significance of it as an atoning sacrifice, which would only add to the aesthetic height.

You would have to be as blind as [I]Hod not to see the dovetailing of that Aryan Sun God legend with the story of the Christ.

Again, just as we distinguish between 'Nietzsche' and 'Nietzschean', we also distinguish between 'Aryan' and 'Aryanised'.

Christ was Aryanised in Christianity; therefore, Christ can also be Nietzscheanised.
I acknowledge a parallel between the Baldur story and the Christ story. However, I don't think this thesis is tenable. The origin of Christianity was more the result of the confluence of the Hellenistic world and the Hebrew world, rather than the Germanic world and the Hebrew world.

Moody
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Let Gods, men, brutes, beweep him; plants and stones!

So shall I know the lost was dear indeed,

And bend my heart, and give him back to Heaven.

[from Balder Dead, by Matthew Arnold]



"...I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . ."(Nietzsche)

And this is one of the ways in which the hard-hearted Roman Caesar in Nietzsche masters the Christ-Soul.



I see nothing intrinsically wrong or harmful about the concept of pity and grief that is central to the Christian "myth" (I take the gospels virtually at face value). This view is also applied to the Baldur myth, which I hold, as many others do, as the most beautiful story in Norse mythology. When viewed purely in terms of aesthetics, the Christ story rises high above many others. The crucifixion of Christ, being a mythologized event that nevertheless actually took place, thereby becomes a living work of art. This interpretion and theory is something that I have considered for several years, and led to my creation of a speculative philosophical system, which I would like to rework someday.

Nietzsche (in)famously eschewed Pity at great length.

He saw such emotions as being very dangerous and detrimental to the Noble outlook, saying that such Legislator-Philosophers must be hard-hearted, like a Caesar.

The quality of a Caesar he is thinking of includes that complete indifference to the loss of human life so long as it serve the goal of Empire and Victory.

Of course, the Christian Church itself was able to work this seeming contradiction with the 'Just War' theory, for example.

The image I posted in a previous post of Hermann von Salza illustrates this - his huge Viking sword symbolises the Cross too; as the Christ said, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".


And in fact, it could entail many different implications, such as the belief among many Gnostics that the angelic Christ-being departed the host body of Jesus prior to his death on the cross, and that Jesus' death therefore held no significance in soteriological terms.

Nietzschean Christianity suggests a new era of Christian Heresy; I imagine Christ's resurrection as the salvation given by the Unconquered Sun [and His crucifixion indicates the Black Sun].

I expect that many Germans who converted to Christianity in the early days saw The Christ very much in this way as a Baldur archetype.

Further, I would replace the 'Jealous God' concept of the OT with a thorough going Pantheism; as Nietzsche pointed out, the New and Old Testaments do not belong together anyway.
I would replace the episodic nature of the 'Bible story' with a cyclical eternal recurrence restoring the Christ as an Aryan Sun God.


I do not even feel that the belief in the atoning sacrifice of the crucifixion is harmful in itself...
In other words, the Golgotha event can be completely divorced from ethics, even if one accepts the theological significance of it as an atoning sacrifice, which would only add to the aesthetic height.

Yes - the Christian version is a Semitic moral interpretation of the Aryan Sun God myth.
Nietzsche sought to undo that moral interpretation and return man to the innocence of becoming - free of sin.


I acknowledge a parallel between the Baldur story and the Christ story. However, I don't think this thesis is tenable. The origin of Christianity was more the result of the confluence of the Hellenistic world and the Hebrew world, rather than the Germanic world and the Hebrew world.

Yes, but the German and the Hellenistic world shared similar Aryan paradigms, the Aryan Sun God being a stark example.
The Roman Empire, particularly in the Middle East area, was a great incubator of such Aryan myths and cults which proliferated in a hot-house spiritual atmosphere.
The Christ story shares so many features with the Aryan Sun God myth that cannot be accidental.

That all these highly symbolic features were portrayed as 'historical fact' in Christianity may have disguised this origin, but once you place the various versions of the myth side by side [including the Christ Myth] it becomes obvious that Jesus and Baldur - along with Mithras, Bacchus and the rest - are all aspects of the same central myth which is based on the earliest Aryan worship of celestial bodies and the interpretation of the movements of the planets and stars across the 'vault of Heaven'.

Drake
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Nietzsche (in)famously eschewed Pity at great length.

He saw such emotions as being very dangerous and detrimental to the Noble outlook, saying that such Legislator-Philosophers must be hard-hearted, like a Caesar.

The quality of a Caesar he is thinking of includes that complete indifference to the loss of human life so long as it serve the goal of Empire and Victory.
You are misinterpreting my statements. I was speaking solely in terms of aesthetics, not in terms of moral outlooks. To be sure, pity as applied broadly and unscrupulously is deleterious and leads to many harmful things. Obviously, what is unhealthy and cancerous must be cut out and discarded. I am familiar with Nietzsche.

Though, why is pity synonymous with weakness? It is not necessarily. Are you saying that the Aesir were weak for mourning the death of Baldur? How could the War-God cry, or the giant-slayer? It is reflective of the human condition, and the emotional depth thereof. That is the meaning of art. To become the Ubermensch does not mean to completely discard those things; this would perhaps entail becoming subhuman, an animal who cares for nothing except self-preservation. Our emotions and the depth thereof, as expressed through artwork, language, music, etc. are what separate us from the animals. They cannot simply be abandoned, but rather must be brought into new dimensions and states of being. The Ubermensch is far freer than you would suppose; he is not a goose-stepper, but a creator. Indeed, as Nietzsche said, a creator must be hard. Though, Nietzsche never created a binding set of rules for himself (and the coming Ubermensch) to follow.

Yes - the Christian version is a Semitic moral interpretation of the Aryan Sun God myth.
Nietzsche sought to undo that moral interpretation and return man to the innocence of becoming - free of sin.
The moral interpretation has already been undone. No one believes in God anymore. Thus we descend into nihilism, unless we embrace what we were meant to be. There is no such thing as sin any longer; Christian morality is a thing of the past, and humanistic worldviews determine morality, which leads to many corruptions and weaknesses, as these worldviews are fundamentally weak. They take into account only base human desires: without God, what else remains, right? Wrong! What must be embraced is a dream, an elusive future on the distant horizon that must be grasped at all costs, a future god-man, with sword drawn upon the grand stage, alive and without fear.

Moody
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 01:26 PM
You are misinterpreting my statements. I was speaking solely in terms of aesthetics, not in terms of moral outlooks. To be sure, pity as applied broadly and unscrupulously is deleterious and leads to many harmful things. Obviously, what is unhealthy and cancerous must be cut out and discarded. I am familiar with Nietzsche.

I mentioned Nietzsche's attitude towards Pity for the benefit of other readers of this thread who may not be as familiar with Nietzsche as you are - it was not meant as an interpretation of your statements, it was rather mentioning something quite relevant to the general discussion.

Nietzsche rejects Christian morality due to its emphasis on Pity; the Baldur myth can be interpreted as a moral lesson on Pity too, etc., etc.,
This all impacts on the concept of a 'Nietzschean Christianity', and so had to be mentioned.

You brought in "aesthetics" unilaterally in a way that you haven't really explained yet, so I haven't been able to 'interpret' or 'misinterpret' that.

Christianity is mainly a moral religion; however, morality and aesthetics often go hand in hand, so I don't agree with your statement to the effect that things are either moral or aesthetic. Things are never as black & white as that.

While it is true that things which are certain to kill you immediately should be 'cut out', it is not necessarily the case that all harmful things have to be so treated if we can survive them; as Nietzsche said, "what does not kill me makes me stronger".

This could explain Nietzsche's on-going dialogue with Christianity and Socrates, for example.
I mean that he doesn't extirpate these things in the way that Suut wants to - he carries on keeping-on with them.


Though, why is pity synonymous with weakness? It is not necessarily. Are you saying that the Aesir were weak for mourning the death of Baldur? How could the War-God cry, or the giant-slayer?

Pity is certainly closely related to weakness .
It is also Disgenic [i.e., you may allow the botched and disabled to proliferate in the genepool thereby lowering the quality of the race etc., etc.,].

Really, Christian-Pity morality gives us many examples which have been secularised into modern liberal society.

But more importantly for Nietzsche, Pity - [i]whether it be weak or not - is Ignoble because it trespasses upon the Noble man's sense of Distance.

In order to Pity, one has to feel a kind of closeness which is not appropriate in a caste-based [hierarchical] society.

Pity can only be allowed inter pares .
One cannot Pity those beneath us nor those who are opposed to us.

This is an important lesson from Nietzsche who himself shows some Pity for those Noble Ubermenschen who met untimely ends.

Likewise, the Aesir can take Pity amongst themselves .


Pity is reflective of the human condition, and the emotional depth thereof. That is the meaning of art.

To Nietzsche there is no single 'human condition' because there is no 'humanity' as such.
There are particular human individuals, particular human types, particular cultures, particular castes and particular races etc.,
And these all have their own peculiar moralities and peculiar arts. [e.g., some individuals are seemingly [i]devoid of Pity]

So I cannot aree with your statement, especially as it also refers to art in a way that you have yet to explain.



To become the Ubermensch does not mean to completely discard those things; this would perhaps entail becoming subhuman, an animal who cares for nothing except self-preservation.

Well the Nietzschean project is of the Ubermensch - which entails rising [b]above what he called the [i]human-all-too-human; but at the same time, as he said, to "translate man back to Nature".

The 'Christ-Souled Roman Caesar' signifies this!

He actually masters his emotions, as I already have said.

Therefore he uses his Pity only for those who are his equals [and there may be few equals of his in any case, so he will be nigh-on devoid of Pity].

In the same subsection where he names the roman caesar with christ's soul Nietzsche writes;

"We open up gulfs such as have never existed before, we desire that man should become more evil than he has ever been before".
[WP 988]


The Ubermensch is far freer than you would suppose; he is not a goose-stepper, but a creator.

Are you saying that being a "goose-stepper" [whatever that is supposed to mean] prevents you from being 'creative'?
For Nietzsche 'freedom' and 'unfreedom' meant only the difference between 'strong will' and 'weak will' respectively.


Nietzsche never created a binding set of rules for himself (and the coming Ubermensch) to follow.

Doesn't a Caesar live according to self-imposed rules [called discipline], and doesn't such a one make rules?

Didn't Nietzsche deplore the Modern tendency to waive the rules [he called it 'misarchism']?

Do you know how disciplined Nietzsche was in his own life?

I have already quoted the heading for the 'Christ-Souled Caesar' section;

"The Highest Man as Legislator of the Future".
[WP IV:i]

As a Legislator this Higher Man [who Nietzsche goes on to call a Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul] will certainly be expected to ... 'legislate' ... how do you do that without making a few rules here and there?


The moral interpretation has already been undone. No one believes in God anymore. Thus we descend into nihilism, unless we embrace what we were meant to be. There is no such thing as sin any longer; Christian morality is a thing of the past, and humanistic worldviews determine morality, which leads to many corruptions and weaknesses, as these worldviews are fundamentally weak. They take into account only base human desires: without God, what else remains, right? Wrong! What must be embraced is a dream, an elusive future on the distant horizon that must be grasped at all costs, a future god-man, with sword drawn upon the grand stage, alive and without fear.

God takes a long time to die - therefore he is still in his death-throes around the world and so still living on through the Believers [you may have noticed].

The belief in sin is still around too .

How is this?

Partly due to those "humanistic worldviews" which are really just the secular [i]residues of Christian morality.

Gods take far longer to die than do mortals - perhaps that's why the Greeks called their gods the immortals.

SuuT
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 09:14 PM
What follows is the full context in which one must take "the Christ-souled Roman Ceasar" from the Will to Power. There are three types of people who rely on the ignorance of their wider audience on a subject to gather a flock: a rhetor; a preist; and, a politician.

It is Nietzsche who wishes to extirpate christianity; I agree with his appraisal. He offers up, amongst other things, the "Eternal Recurrence" as a selective breeding agent in its place.

All of the interpretive rope-a-dope in the cosmos does not change what is said below: it is to be taken literally; it is to be taken strictly.

There is a departure here from aphorism and irony that were the staples of Nietzsche's style.

Why?

Because Nietzsche understood the gravity of his task in these notes: it was his aim to awaken new gods.

Let us take Moderator Lawless' comments into perspective; let us even assume them true.

Now: let us read the following...

THE WILL TO POWER

BOOK IV
DISCIPLINE AND BREEDING
Excerpts

BOOK IV DISCIPLINE AND BREEDING
I. Order of Rank
1. The Doctrine of Order of Rank
858 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.
862 (1884)
A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world-weary.
The annihilation of the decaying races. Decay of Europe.—The annihilation of slavish evaluations.—Dominion over the earth as a means of producing a higher type.—The annihilation of the tartuffery called “morality” (Christianity as a hysterical kind of honesty in this: Augustine, Bunyan).—The annihilation of suffrage universel; i.e., the system through which the lowest natures prescribe themselves as laws for the higher.—The annihilation of mediocrity and its acceptance. (The one-sided, individuals—peoples; to strive for fullness of nature through the pairing of opposites: race mixture to this end).—The new courage—no a priori truths (such truths were sought by those accustomed to faith!), but a free subordination to a ruling idea that has its time: e.g., time as a property of space, etc.
2. The Strong and the Weak
871 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
The victorious and unbridled: their depressive influence on the value of the desires. It was the dreadful barbarism of custom that, especially in the Middle Ages, compelled the creation of a veritable “league of virtue”—together with an equally dreadful exaggeration of that which constitutes the value of man. Struggling “civilization” (taming) needs every kind of irons and torture to maintain itself against terribleness and beast-of-prey natures.
Here a confusion is quite natural, although its influence has been fatal: that which men of power and will are able to demand of themselves also provides a measure of that which they may permit themselves. Such natures are the antithesis of the vicious and unbridled: although they may on occasion do things that would convict a lesser man of vice and immoderation.
Here the concept of the “equal value of men before God” is extraordinarily harmful; one forbade actions and attitudes that were in themselves among the prerogatives of the strongly constituted—as if they were in themselves unworthy of men. One brought the entire tendency of the strong into disrepute when one erected the protective measures of the weakest (those who were weakest also when confronting themselves) as a norm of value.
Confusion went so far that one branded the very virtuosi of life (whose autonomy offered the sharpest antithesis to the vicious and unbridled) with the most opprobrious names. Even now one believes one must disapprove of a Cesare Borgia; that is simply laughable. The church has excommunicated German emperors on account of their vices: as if a monk or priest had any right to join in a discussion about what a Frederick II may demand of himself. A Don Juan is sent to hell: that is very naive. Has it been noticed that in heaven all interesting men are missing?-- Just a hint to the girls as to where they can best find their salvation.—If one reflects with some consistency, and moreover with a deepened insight into what a “great man” is, no doubt remains that the church sends all “great men” to hell—it fights against all “greatness of man.”
877 (Spring-Fall 1887; rev. Spring-Fall 1888)
The revolution made Napoleon possible: that is its justification. For the sake of a similar prize one would have to desire the anarchical collapse of our entire civilization. Napoleon made nationalism possible: that is its excuse.
The value of a man (apart from his morality or immorality, naturally; for with these concepts the value of a man is not even touched) does not reside in his utility; for it would continue to exist even if there were no one to whom he could be of any use. And why could not precisely that man who produced the most disastrous effects be the pinnacle of the whole species of man: so high, so superior that everything would perish from envy of him?
893 (Spring-Fall 1887)
Hatred of mediocrity is unworthy of a philosopher: it is almost a question mark against his “right to philosophy.” Precisely because he is an exception he has to take the rule under his protection, he has to keep the mediocre in good heart.
898 (Spring-Fall 1887)
The strong of the future.—That which partly necessity, partly chance has achieved here and there, the conditions for the production of a stronger type, we are now able to comprehend and consciously will: we are able to create the conditions under which such an elevation is possible.
Until now, “education” has had in view the needs of society: not the possible needs of the future, but the needs of the society of the day. One desired to produce “tools” for it. Assuming the wealth of force were greater, one could imagine forces being subtracted, not to serve the needs of society but some future need.
Such a task would have to be posed the more it was grasped to what extent the contemporary form of society was being so powerfully transformed that at some future time it would be unable to exist for its own sake alone, but only as a tool in the hands of a stronger race.
The increasing dwarfing of man is precisely the driving force that brings to mind the breeding of a stronger race—a race that would be excessive precisely where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (in will, responsibility, self-assurance, ability to posit goals for oneself).
The means would be those history teaches: isolation through interests in preservation that are the reverse of those which are average today; habituation to reverse evaluations; distance as a pathos; a free conscience in those things that today are most undervalued and prohibited.
The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it. The necessity to create a gulf, distance, order of rank, is given eo ipso—not the necessity to retard the process.
As soon as it is established, this homogenizing species requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former and can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength for beauty, bravery, culture, manners to the highest peak of the spirit; an affirming race that may grant itself every great luxury—strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative, rich enough to have no need of thrift and pedantry, beyond good and evil; a hothouse for strange and choice plants.
899 (1885)
Our psychologists, whose glance lingers involuntarily on symptoms of decadence alone, again and again induce us to mistrust the spirit. One always sees only those effects of the spirit that make men weak, delicate, and morbid; but now there are coming

new barbarians
{
cynics
experimenters
conquerors
}
union of spiritual superiority with well-being and an excess of strength.


900 (1885)
I point to something new: certainly for such a democratic type there exists the danger of the barbarian, but one has looked for it only in the depths. There exists also another type of barbarian, who comes from the heights: a species of conquering and ruling natures in search of material to mold. Prometheus was this kind of barbarian.
909 (Jan.-Fall 1888)
The typical forms of self-formation. Or: the eight principal questions.
1. Whether one wants to be more multifarious or simpler?
2. Whether one wants to become happier or more indifferent to happiness and unhappiness?
3. Whether one wants to become more contented with oneself or more exacting and inexorable?
4. Whether one wants to become softer, more yielding, more human, or more “inhuman”?
5. Whether one wants to become more prudent or more ruthless?
6. Whether one wants to reach a goal or to avoid all goals (as, e.g., the philosopher does who smells a boundary, a nook, a prison, a stupidity in every goal)?
7. Whether one wants to become more respected or more feared? Or more despised?
8. Whether one wants to become tyrant or seducer or shepherd or herd animal?
910 (Spring-Fall 1887)
Types of my disciples.—To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities—I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures. [The note continues in Nietzsche’s MS: “I have not yet got to know any idealist, but many liars--—“]
916 (1884; rev. Spring-Fall 1888)
What has been ruined by the church’s misuse of it:
1. asceticism: one has hardly the courage so far to display its natural utility, its indispensability in the service of the education of the will. Our absurd pedagogic world, before which the “useful civil servant” hovers as a model, thinks it can get by with “instruction,” with brain drill; it has not the slightest idea that something else is needed first—education of will power; one devises tests for everything except for the main thing: whether one can will, whether one may promise; the young man finishes school without a single question, without any curiosity even, concerning this supreme value-problem of his nature;
2. fasting: in every sense—even as a means of preserving the delicacy of one’s ability to enjoy all good things (e.g., occasionally to stop reading, listening to music, being pleasant; one must have fast days for one’s virtues, too);
3. the “monastery”: temporary isolation, accompanied by strict refusal, e.g., of letters; a kind of most profound self-reflection and self-recovery that desires to avoid, not “temptations,” but “duties”: an escape from the daily round; a detachment from they tyranny of stimuli and influences that condemns us to spend our strength in nothing but reactions and does not permit the accumulation to the point of spontaneous activity (one should observe our scholars from close up: they think only reactively; i.e., they have to read before they can think);
4. feasts: One has to be very coarse in order not to feel the presence of Christians and Christian values as an oppression beneath which all genuine festive feelings go to the devil. Feasts include: pride, exuberance, wantonness; mockery of everything serious and Philistine; a divine affirmation of oneself out of animal plenitude and perfection—one and all states which the Christian cannot honestly welcome. The feast is paganism par excellence;
5. courage confronted with one’s own nature: dressing up in “moral costumes.—That one has no need of moral formulas in order to welcome an affect; standard: how far we can affirm what is nature in us—how much or how little we need to have recourse to morality;
6. death—One must convert the stupid physiological fact into a moral necessity. So to live that one can also will at the right time to die!
918 (Jan.-Fall 1888)
One would make a fit little boy stare if one asked him: “Would you like to become virtuous?”—but he will open his eyes wide if asked: “Would you like to become stronger than your friends?”—
3. The Noble Man
941 (Summer-Fall 1883)
The meaning of our gardens and palaces (and to this extent also the meaning of all desire for riches) is to remove disorder and vulgarity from sight and to build a home for nobility of soul.
The majority, to be sure, believe they will acquire higher natures when, those beautiful, peaceful objects have operated upon them: hence the rush to go to Italy and on travels, etc.; all reading and visits to theaters. They want to have themselves formed—that is the meaning of their cultural activity! But the strong, the mighty want to form and no longer to have anything foreign about them!
Thus men also plunge into wild nature, not to find themselves but to lose and forget themselves in it. “To be outside oneself” as the desire of all the weak and the self-discontented.
942 (1885)
There is only nobility of birth, only nobility of blood. (I am not speaking here of the little word “von” or of the Almanach de Gotha [Genealogy reference book of the royal families of Europe.]: parenthesis for asses.) When one speaks of “aristocrats of the spirit,” reasons are usually not lacking for concealing something; as is well known, it is a favorite term among ambitious Jews. For spirit alone does not make noble; rather, there must be something to ennoble the spirit.—What then is required? Blood.
949 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
That one stakes one’s life, one’s health, one’s honor, is the consequence of high spirits and an overflowing, prodigal will: not from love of man but because every great danger challenges our curiosity about the degree of our strength and our courage.
4. The Masters of the Earth
958 (1884)
I write for a species of man that does not yet exist: for the “masters of the earth.”
Religions, as consolations and relaxations, dangerous: man believes he has a right to take his ease.
In Plato’s Theages it is written: “Each one of us would like to be master over all men, if possible, and best of all God.” This attitude must exist again.
Englishmen, Americans, and Russians--—
960 (1885-1886)
From now on there will be more favorable preconditions for more comprehensive forms of dominion, whose like has never yet existed. And even this is not the most important thing; the possibility has been established for the production of international racial unions whose task will be to rear a master race, the future “masters of the earth”;--a new, tremendous aristocracy, based on the severest self-legislation, in which the will of philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants will be made to endure for millennia—a higher kind of man who, thanks to their superiority in will, knowledge, riches, and influence, employ democratic Europe as their most pliant and supple instrument for getting hold of the destinies of the earth, so as to work as artists upon “man” himself. Enough: the time is coming when politics will have a different meaning.
5. The Great Human Being
966 (1884)
In contrast to the animals, man has cultivated an abundance of contrary drives and impulses within himself: thanks to this synthesis, he is master of the earth.—Moralities are the expression of locally limited orders of rank in his multifarious world of drives, so man should not perish through their contradictions. Thus a drive as master, its opposite weakened, refined, as the impulse that provides the stimulus for the activity of the chief drive.
The highest man would have the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured. Indeed, where the plant “man” shows himself strongest one finds instincts that conflict powerfully (e.g., in Shakespeare), but are controlled.
6. The Highest Man as Legislator of the Future
981 (Spring-Fall 1887)
Not to make men “better,” not to preach morality to them in any form, as if “morality in itself,” or any ideal kind of man, were given; but to create conditions that require stronger men who for their part need, and consequently will have, a morality (more clearly: a physical-spiritual discipline) that makes them strong!
Not to allow oneself to be misled by blue eyes or heaving bosoms: greatness of soul has nothing romantic about it. And unfortunately nothing at all amiable.
984 (1884)
Greatness of soul is inseparable from greatness of spirit. For it involves independence; but in the absence of spiritual greatness, independence ought not to be allowed, it causes mischief, even through its desire to do good and practice “justice.” Small spirits must obey—hence cannot possess greatness.
II. Dionysus
1003 (Jan.-Fall 1888)
To him who has turned out well, who does my heart good, carved from wood that is hard, gentle, and fragrant—in whom even the nose takes pleasure—this book is dedicated.
He enjoys the taste of what is wholesome for him;
his pleasure in anything ceases when the bounds of the wholesome are crossed;
he divines the remedies for partial injuries; he has illnesses as great stimulants of his life;
he knows how to exploit ill chances;
he grows stronger through the accidents that threaten to destroy him;
he instinctively gathers from all that he sees, hears, experiences, what advances his main concern—he follows a principle of selection—he allows much to fall through;
he reacts with the slowness bred by a long caution and a deliberate pride—he tests a stimulus for its origin and its intentions, he does not submit;
he is always in his own company, whether he deals with books, men, or landscapes;
he honors by choosing, by admitting, by trusting.
1007 (Spring-Fall 1887)
To revalue values—what would that mean? All the spontaneous—new, future, stronger—movements must be there; but they still appear under false names and valuations and have not yet become conscious of themselves.
A courageous becoming-conscious and affirmation of what has been achieved—a liberation from the slovenly routine of old valuations that dishonor us in the best and strongest things we have achieved.
1017 (Spring-Fall 1887)
In place of the “natural man” of Rousseau, the nineteenth century has discovered a truer image of “man”—it has had the courage to do so.—On the whole, the Christian concept “man” has thus been reinstated. What one has not had the courage for is to call this “man in himself” good and to see in him the guarantee of the future. Neither has one dared to grasp that an increase in the terribleness of man is an accompaniment of every increase in culture; in this, one is still subject to the Christian ideal and takes its side against paganism, also against the Renaissance concept of virtù. But the key to culture is not to be found in this way: and in praxis one retains the falsification of history in favor of the “good man” (as if he alone constituted the progress of man) and the socialist ideal (i.e., the residue of Christianity and of Rousseau in the de-Christianized world).
The struggle against the eighteenth century: its supreme overcoming by Goethe and Napoleon. Schopenhauer, too, struggles against it; but he involuntarily steps back into the seventeenth century—he is a modern Pascal, with Pascalian value judgments without Christianity. Schopenhauer was not strong enough for a new Yes.
Napoleon: insight that the higher and the terrible man necessarily belong together. The “man” reinstated; the woman again accorded her due tribute of contempt and fear. “Totality” as health and highest activity; the straight line, the grand style in action rediscovered; the most powerful instinct, that of life itself, the lust to rule, affirmed.
1023 (March-June 1888)
Pleasure appears where there is the feeling of power.
Happiness: in the triumphant consciousness of power and victory.
Progress: the strengthening of the type, the ability for great willing; everything else is misunderstanding, danger.
1026 (Summer-Fall 1883)
Not “happiness follows virtue”—but the more powerful man first designates his happy state as virtue.
Evil actions belong to the powerful and virtuous: bad, base ones to the subjected.
The most powerful man, the creator, would have to be the most evil, in as much as he carries his ideal against the ideals of other men and remakes them in his own image. Evil here means: hard, painful, enforced.
Such men as Napoleon must come again and again and confirm the belief in the autocracy of the individual: but he himself was corrupted by the means he had to employ and lost noblesse of character. If he had had to prevail among a different kind of man he could have employed other means; and it would thus not seem to be a necessity for a Caesar to become bad.
1028 (Spring-Fall 1887)
Terribleness is part of greatness: let us not deceive ourselves.
1038 (March-Fall 1888)
--And how many new gods are still possible! As for myself, in whom the religious, that is to say god-forming, instinct occasionally becomes active at impossible times—how differently, how variously the divine has revealed itself to me each time!
So many strange things have passed before me in those timeless moments that fall into one’s life as if from the moon, when one no longer has any idea how old one is or how young one will yet be—I should not doubt that there are many kinds of gods—There are some one cannot imagine without a certain halcyon and frivolous quality in their makeup—Perhaps light feet are even an integral part of the concept :god—Is it necessary to elaborate that a god prefers to stay beyond everything bourgeois and rational? and, between ourselves, also beyond good and evil? His prospect of free—in Goethe’s words.—And to call upon the inestimable authority of Zarathustra in this instance: Zarathustra goes so far as to confess: “I would believe only in a God who could dance”—
To repeat: how many new gods are still possible! Zarathustra himself, to be sure, is merely an old atheist: he believes neither in old nor in new gods. Zarathustra says he would; but Zarathustra will not—Do not misunderstand him.
The type of God after the type of creative spirits, of “great men.”
1049 (1885-1886)
Apollo’s deception: the eternity of beautiful forms; the aristocratic legislation, “thus shall it be for ever!”
Dionysus: sensuality and cruelty. Transitoriness could be interpreted as enjoyment of productive and destructive force, as continual creation.
III. The Eternal Recurrence

1053 (1884)
My philosophy brings the triumphant idea of which all other modes of thought will ultimately perish. It is the great cultivating idea: the races that cannot bear it stand condemned; those who find it the greatest benefit are chosen to rule.
1054 (1885-1886)
The greatest of struggles: for this a new weapon is needed.
The hammer: to provoke a fearful decision, to confront Europe with the consequences: whether its will “wills” destruction.
Prevention of reduction to mediocrity. Rather destruction!
1055 (1885)
A pessimistic teaching and way of thinking, an ecstatic nihilism, can under certain conditions be indispensable precisely to the philosopher—as a mighty pressure and hammer with which he breaks and removes degenerate and decaying races to make way for a new order of life, or to implant into that which is degenerate and desires to die a longing for the end.
1056 (1884)
I want to teach the idea that gives many the right to erase themselves—the great cultivating idea.
1057 (1883-1888)
The eternal recurrence. A prophecy. The Eternal Recurrence.]
1. Presentation of the doctrine and its theoretical presuppositions and consequences.
2. Proof of the doctrine.
3. Probable consequences of its being believed (it makes everything break open).
a) Means of enduring it;
b) Means of disposing it.
4. Its place in history as a mid-point.
Period of greatest danger.
Foundation of an oligarchy above peoples and their interests: education to a universally human politics.
Counterpart of Jesuitism.
1058 (1883-1888)
The two great philosophical points of view (devised by Germans):
a) that of becoming, of development.
b) that according to the value of existence (but the wretched form of German pessimism must first be overcome!)--both brought together by me in a decisive way.
Everything becomes and recurs eternally—escape is impossible!-- Supposing we could judge value, what follows? The idea of recurrence as a selective principle, in the service of strength (and barbarism!!).
Ripeness of man for this idea.
1059 (1884)
1. The idea [of the eternal recurrence]: the presuppositions that would have to be true if it were true. Its consequences.
2. As the hardest idea: its probable effect if it were not prevented, i.e., if all values were not revalued.
3. Means of enduring it: the revaluation of all values. No longer joy in certainty but uncertainty; no longer “cause and effect” but the continually creative; no longer will to preservation but to power; no longer the humble expression, “everything is merely subjective,” but “it is also our work!-- Let us be proud of it!”
1060 (1884)
To endure the idea of the recurrence one needs: freedom from morality; new means against the fact of pain (pain conceived as a tool, as the father of pleasure; there is no cumulative consciousness of displeasure); the enjoyment of all kinds of uncertainty, experimentalism, as a counterweight to this extreme fatalism; abolition of the concept of necessity; abolition of the “will”; abolition of “knowledge-in-itself.”
Greatest elevation of the consciousness of strength in man, as he creates the overman.
1061 (1887-1888)
The two most extreme modes of thought—the mechanistic and the Platonic—are reconciled in the eternal recurrence: both as ideals.
1062 (1885)
If the world had a goal, it must have been reached. If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been reached. If it were in any way capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, of “being,” then all becoming would long since have come to an end, along with all thinking, all “spirit.” The fact of “spirit” as a form of becoming proves that the world has no goal, no final state, and is incapable of being.
The old habit, however, of associating a goal with every event and a guiding, creative God with the world, is so powerful that it requires an effort for a thinker not to fall into thinking of the very aimlessness of the world as intended. This notion—that the world intentionally avoids a goal and even knows artifices for keeping itself from entering into a circular course—must occur to all those who would like to force on the world the ability for eternal novelty, i.e., on a finite, definite, unchangeable force of constant size, such as the world is, the miraculous power of infinite novelty in its forms and states. The world, even if it is no longer a god, is still supposed to be capable of the divine power of creation, the power of infinite transformations; it is supposed to consciously prevent itself from returning to any of its old forms; it is supposed to possess not only the intention but the means of every one of its movements at every moment so as to escape goals, final states, repetitions—and whatever else may follow from such an unforgivably insane way of thinking and desiring. It is still the old religious way of thinking and desiring, a kind of longing to believe that in some way the world is after all like the old beloved, infinite, boundlessly creative God—that in some way “the old God still lives”—that longing of Spinoza which was expressed in the words “deus sive natura” [God or nature.] (he even felt “natura sive deus”).
What, then, is the law and belief with which the decisive change, the recently attained preponderance of the scientific spirit over the religious, God-inventing spirit, is most clearly formulated? Is it not: the world, as force, may not be thought of as unlimited, for it cannot be so thought of; we forbid ourselves the concept of an infinite force as incompatible with the concept “force.” Thus—the world also lacks the capacity for eternal novelty.
1063 (1887-1888)
The law of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence.
1064 (1885)
That a state of equilibrium is never reached proves that it is not possible. But in an indefinite space it would have to have been reached. Likewise in a spherical space. The shape of space must be the cause of eternal movement, and ultimately of all “imperfection.”
That “force” and “rest,” “remaining the same,” contradict one another. The measure of force (as magnitude) as fixed, but its essence in flux. [The MS continues: “in tension, compelling.”]
“Timelessness” to be rejected. At any precise moment of a force, the absolute conditionality of a new distribution of all its forces is given: it cannot stand still. “Change” belongs to the essence, therefore also temporality: with this, however, the necessity of change has only been posited once more conceptually.
1065 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
A certain emperor always bore in mind the transitoriness of all things so as not to take them too seriously and to live at peace among them. To me, on the contrary, everything seems far too valuable to be so fleeting: I seek an eternity for everything: ought one to pour the most precious salves and wines into the sea?-- My consolation is that everything that has been is eternal: the sea will cast it up again.
1066 (March-June 1888)
The new world-conception.—The world exists; it is not something that becomes, not something that passes away. Or rather: it becomes, it passes away, but it has never begun to become and never ceased from passing away—it maintains itself in both.—It lives on itself: its excrements are its food.
We need not worry for a moment about the hypothesis of a created world. The concept “create” is today completely indefinable [This word is illegible.], unrealizable; merely a word, a rudimentary survival from the ages of superstition; one can explain nothing with a mere word. The last attempt to conceive a world that had a beginning has lately been made several times with the aid of logical procedures—generally, as one may divine, with an ulterior theological motive.
Lately one has sought several times to find a contradiction in the concept “temporal infinity of the world in the past” (regressus in infinitum): one has even found it, although at the cost of confusing the head with the tail. Nothing can prevent me from reckoning backward from this moment and saying “I shall never reach the end”; just as I can reckon forward from the same moment into the infinite. Only if I made the mistake—I shall guard against it—of equating this correct concept of a regressus in infinitum with an utterly unrealizable concept of a finite progressus up to this present, only if I suppose that the direction (forward or backward) is logically a matter of indifference, would I take the head—this moment—for the tail: I shall leave that to you, my dear Herr Dühring!--
I have come across this idea in earlier thinkers: every time it was determined by other ulterior considerations (--mostly theological, in favor of the creator spiritus). If the world could in any way become rigid, dry, dead, nothing, or if it could reach a state of equilibrium, or if it had any kind of goal that involved duration, immutability, the once-and-for-all (in short, speaking metaphysically: if becoming could resolve itself into being or into nothingness), then this state must have been reached: from which it follows—
This is the sole certainty we have in our hands to serve as a corrective to a great host of world hypotheses possible in themselves. If, e.g., the mechanistic theory cannot avoid the consequence, drawn for it by William Thomson [First Baron Kelvin (1824-1907), British physicist and mathematician who introduced the Kelvin or Absolute Scale of temperature.], of leading to a final state, then the mechanistic theory stands refuted.
If the world may be thought of as a certain definite quantity of force and as a certain definite number of centers of force—and every other representation remains indefinite and therefore useless—it follows that, in the great dice game of existence, it must pass through a calculable number of combinations. In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place, and each of these combinations conditions the entire sequence of combinations in the same series, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the world as a circular movement that has already repeated itself infinitely often and plays its game in infinitum.
This conception is not simply a mechanistic conception; for if it were that, it would not condition an infinite recurrence of identical cases, but a final state. Because the world has not reached this, mechanistic theory must be considered an imperfect and merely provisional hypothesis.
1067 (1885)
And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself—do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?-- This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!


To splice this man's name and his philosophical children, this noble mans name, (who was "terrified of one day being pronounced holy") to his nemesis--to christianity--and call it a tenable contender for future religio-moral dominance is the equivalent of not only speaking ill of him after death; but of dragging his naked and bloated corpse through Vatican City so the Pope might spit on it.

Is this as wide as our sea is?

Is this all we can do?--make conjuncts of and to men, and against their living will?

These are my two dissapointments in this thread: the lack of creativity; and speaking ill of a dead nobleman.

To associate this great man's name with that which he hated!--and make of it a Religion!!

Here is why I, ultimately, can leave this thread in peace (unless further absurdities and lassitude arise): "Nietzschean Christianity" will never happen beyond a possible 'cult'.

No Nietzschean will convert, as they also know the christ Jesus; no christian will convert, so long as they know Nietzsche.

Therein 'Nietzschean Christianity' is circumscribed; and, quite possibly, extirpated.

Drake
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Nietzsche rejects Christian morality due to its emphasis on Pity; the Baldur myth can be interpreted as a moral lesson on Pity too, etc., etc.,
Christianity is mainly a moral religion; however, morality and aesthetics often go hand in hand, so I don't agree with your statement to the effect that things are either moral or aesthetic. Things are never as black & white as that.
I disagree, and maintain that things can be either moral or aesthetic, and I will cite for example the Norse mythos as manifested in the Eddic lays and the Icelandic Sagas, in which the primary force is fate, and the uncompromising, inexplainable nature of fate. There is no moral lesson in fate (that is, the strange, cruel fate of Norse myth); there is only narrative (i.e. purely aesthetic quality).

Pity is certainly closely related to weakness .
It is also Disgenic [i.e., you may allow the botched and disabled to proliferate in the genepool thereby lowering the quality of the race etc., etc.,].

Really, Christian-Pity morality gives us many examples which have been secularised into modern liberal society.

But more importantly for Nietzsche, Pity - [I]whether it be weak or not - is Ignoble because it trespasses upon the Noble man's sense of Distance.

In order to Pity, one has to feel a kind of closeness which is not appropriate in a caste-based [hierarchical] society.

Pity can only be allowed inter pares .
One cannot Pity those beneath us nor those who are opposed to us.

This is an important lesson from Nietzsche who himself shows some Pity for those Noble Ubermenschen who met untimely ends.

Likewise, the Aesir can take Pity amongst themselves .
You have taken my statements further than they were originally intended. I originally said that the aesthetic experience of pity associated with the Christ myth can be completely disjoined from its broad institutionalization. To institutionalize a moral construct requires an extremely concerted effort over many years; if the Christian church had been completely eradicated during the early persecutions, the moral constructs fabricated by the church would have died along with it, though perhaps might have been institutionalized under a different guise at a later date (although if the Muslims had conquered Europe, perhaps not).

Yes, it is certainly possible for unfortunate things to happen as the result of pity. This would seem to strengthen a Darwinistic worldview, which I accept. One does not need to be incomparably perceptive to see, in spite of Christian promises for the contrary, that the world is extremely harsh and unforgiving. Such an unrealistic "luxury" as pity, either given or received, would seem to be unworldly and unwelcome in this world of struggle. You could extrapolate race theories from this, or Social Darwinistic theories if you will. It would be hard to argue with them. Though, it is also possible for unfortunate things to occur as the result of a lack of pity or a lack of empathy. One good example is the human race's retention of animalistic instincts for unilateral self-preservation at the expense of the environment. If we but had a little empathy for the life surrounding us, perhaps it would not be dying, and we would thereby no longer be threatening our own existence.

In regard to the Christ and Baldur myths, the act of pity on the part of the disciples and the Aesir is not the pitying of one who is lower than themselves. In both cases, the understanding is that Christ and Baldur are more perfect, and therefore higher, than anyone else. If this were not the case, their pity would not have as much meaning or weight; likewise the death of the shining ones would have less meaning.

I think you fail to understand the meaning of the Christ and Baldur myths, in which beauty and purity are mercilessly destroyed and torn asunder. Any pity or grief for this is largely insignificant; it will not change anything. The world is cold and uncompromising, though there are some beautiful things. They are always vulnerable and ephemeral in the face of the unflinching onslaught of hard winter. The meaning of these stories is that even so, beauty and purity cannot truly be destroyed. It exists in the realm of emotion, which cannot be cut down with a sword. I wonder if a hard-hearted Caesar could understand this.

To Nietzsche there is no single 'human condition' because there is no 'humanity' as such.
There are particular human individuals, particular human types, particular cultures, particular castes and particular races etc.,
And these all have their own peculiar moralities and peculiar arts. [e.g., some individuals are seemingly [I]devoid of Pity]

So I cannot aree with your statement, especially as it also refers to art in a way that you have yet to explain.
In spite of the feelings of some race theorists, the human race is an homogeneous species, and whether it can be divided into subspecies is debated (although I personally believe that it can). In spite of Nietzsche's views to the contrary, there are certain irreducible phenomena that are common to the entire human species: all humans are self-aware, are aware of their own mortality, and experience the same breadth of human emotions (even if they choose to ignore some of them, a phenomenon which has held my interest in the past). Whatever differences there unquestionably are between cultures, there are broadly applicable characteristics to all human cultures: all cultures produce art, however primitive or advanced it might be, they all utilize language, they all have social structures, etc. To say therefore that there is no humanity or no common human experience is clearly untrue.

In regard to my statement about the meaning of art, there is no clear definition of "art" and never has been, although at its most pure level, it is the conveyance of some emotional state from creator to perceiver, in its eliciting of some emotional response to a piece of work, whether fixed or ephemeral. My own aesthetic theories extend beyond this, which I won't go into now, but the traditional understanding of art is all I was referring to there.

Well the Nietzschean project is of the Ubermensch - which entails rising [B]above what he called the [I]human-all-too-human; but at the same time, as he said, to "translate man back to Nature".

The 'Christ-Souled Roman Caesar' signifies this!

He actually masters his emotions, as I already have said.

Therefore he uses his Pity only for those who are his equals [and there may be few equals of his in any case, so he will be nigh-on devoid of Pity].

In the same subsection where he names the roman caesar with christ's soul Nietzsche writes;

"We open up gulfs such as have never existed before, we desire that man should become more evil than he has ever been before".
[WP 988]
Yes, I have a perfect understanding of the Ubermensch. That is why I said that there would be no need to eliminate emotions, because one would have the freedom of embracing them or abandoning them at will. You speak of completely eliminating emotions. This would constitute an evolutionary regression. I affirm my emotions and their expression. As Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart said, "No emotion is unknown to me."

Are you saying that being a "goose-stepper" [whatever that is supposed to mean] prevents you from being 'creative'?
For Nietzsche 'freedom' and 'unfreedom' meant only the difference between 'strong will' and 'weak will' respectively.
A lack of individuality precludes the ability to be creative and not merely duplicative. The lack of courage to affirm one's individuality is indicative of a weak will. This is all I meant, that an SA ruffian is not the archetypal Ubermensch, nor even an SS stormtrooper.

Moody
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 01:23 PM
What follows is the full context in which one must take "the Christ-souled Roman Ceasar" from the Will to Power

Not true; you have just quoted "excerpts" from 'The Will to Power' - not the "full context"!

These are the usual excerpts which appear on the 'net [they are all the same and all leave out the same sections].

The aphorism which contains the phrase Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul [ 983] is left out!

Not only that, but the section in which that aphorism appears [6.The Higher man: On the Legislators of the Future] is represented here by only two (2) aphorisms!

We get here aphorism number 966 followed by 981, then 984, and then 1003 - what about all those inbetween!

Only over 40 aphorisms missed out!

Some "full context".

I suggest you read it all, as I have done - including the aphorism which includes the slogan we are actually meant to be talking about.


what is said below: ... is to be taken literally; it is to be taken strictly.

I hardly call missing out huge chunks of the relevant book being "literal" or "strict"!


THE WILL TO POWER: BOOK IV; DISCIPLINE AND BREEDING
Excerpts etc., etc.,

Yes - excerpts which do not even include aphorism 983, wherein we find the "Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul"!


To splice this man's name and his philosophical children ... to his nemesis--to christianity-- ... is the equivalent ... of dragging his naked and bloated corpse through Vatican City so the Pope might spit on it.

Not so - Nietzsche actually liked the prospect of "Cesare Borgia as Pope!" - something he said in a book which you continually cite as evidence!

"I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter - Cesare Borgia as Pope ... Am I Understood?"
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist 61]

Another formula that you might want to chew on, as Nietzsche also described Borgia as the closest contender for the Ubermensch!


I maintain that things can be either moral or aesthetic, and I will cite for example the Norse mythos as manifested in the Eddic lays and the Icelandic Sagas, in which the primary force is fate, and the uncompromising, inexplainable nature of fate. There is no moral lesson in fate (that is, the strange, cruel fate of Norse myth); there is only narrative (i.e. purely aesthetic quality).

Narratives, or stories - such as the Norse Myths - clearly teach moral lessons; an important one being that of Honour.
Behaving with Honour even in the face of a certain and decreed fate is a moral lesson.


Though, it is also possible for unfortunate things to occur as the result of a lack of pity or a lack of empathy. One good example is the human race's retention of animalistic instincts for unilateral self-preservation at the expense of the environment. If we but had a little empathy for the life surrounding us, perhaps it would not be dying, and we would thereby no longer be threatening our own existence.

You are talking of 'pity' and 'empathy' as if they are the same thing - they are not.
The former is fellow feeling with [Ger. Mitleid] others to the extent that we dissolve ourselves into them in order to totally identify with their suffering and so lose our own objectivity/identity.

While 'empathy' is an intellectualised feeling within ourselves, wherein we are able to internally [em=in] associate with the sufferings [-pathy] of others from are own distant standpoint.

Empathy implies an detachment that is missing in Pity, and as I said before it is the lack of Distance that Nietzsche abhors in Pity.

It is ironic that you suggest that it is the "retention of animalistic instincts" which has led to enviromental degradation, whereas in fact the instinctive Animal Kingdom has not been the cause for such a catastrophe; rather it has been caused by the technology of human society which claims to put Pity for others first.


In regard to the Christ and Baldur myths, the act of pity on the part of the disciples and the Aesir is [I]not the pitying of one who is lower than themselves. In both cases, the understanding is that Christ and Baldur are more perfect, and therefore higher, than anyone else. If this were not the case, their pity would not have as much meaning or weight; likewise the death of the shining ones would have less meaning.

I made a distinction between pitying amongst equals [giving the example of the Aesir which you repeat here] which is Noble, and pitying those who are lower, which is Ignoble.

In the latter case we are referring to the Christian Morality which does not include taking Pity on Jesus, but rather entreats us to take Pity on the weak, the criminal and the disabled ; Jesus is shown doing just this in the Gospels, and Christians are meant to emulate him.


I think you fail to understand the meaning of the Christ and Baldur myths, in which beauty and purity are mercilessly destroyed and torn asunder. Any pity or grief for this is largely insignificant; it will not change anything.

The Baldur myth clearly states that, after Baldur's death [which is a murder engineered by the scheming Loki using the innocent Hod], if everything in the world would weep for Balder then he would be free to return from the Underworld.
Everything does weep except for hard-hearted Loki.

In the case of Christ, he instead willingly gives up his life to atone for the sins of mankind.

Christ God himself has Pity for a mankind of which he is superior - a Pity therefore of the Ignoble kind; whereas in the Eddas, all things Pity Balder [who is higher than them] so this is a Noble Pity.


The meaning of these stories is that even so, beauty and purity cannot truly be destroyed. It exists in the realm of emotion, which cannot be cut down with a sword. I wonder if a hard-hearted Caesar could understand this.

As an aspect of the general myth of the Unconquered Sun, I think that Caesar would understand this very well;
"Christs may come and Christs may go, but Caesar lives for ever".
[Might is Right]


In spite of the feelings of some race theorists, the human race is an homogeneous species, and whether it can be divided into subspecies is debated (although I personally believe that it can).

If you believe that then you are showing similar "feelings" as "some race theorists".


In spite of Nietzsche's views to the contrary, there are certain irreducible phenomena that are common to the entire human species: all humans are self-aware, are aware of their own mortality, and experience the same breadth of human emotions (even if they choose to ignore some of them, a phenomenon which has held my interest in the past).

"Awareness" and "emotions" are not the sole preserve of the various human races; many animals have these features too. We certainly don't include those other animals as 'humans' - do we?

Nietzsche's point is that the differences between humans are more profound than anything they may have in common, and that these differences should be exaggerated.
The Distances must be widened: he called it the 'Pathos of Distance'.

Of course, if the races did not mix and pursued separate development over long periods of time in different enviroments then the racial differences would become even more profound than they are [just as they were for prehistoric hominids] to the point where there would be a complete and separate speciation.


To say therefore that there is no humanity or no common human experience is clearly untrue.

'Common experince' is not the same as 'common humanity'. Just because I share similar experiences to you doesn't make me your blood relation.

"As yet humanity hath no goal. But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity still be lacking, is there not lacking - humanity itself? -"
[Nietzsche TSZ]

This is philosophical attitude towards the concept of 'humanity'.


In regard to my statement about the meaning of art, there is no clear definition of "art" and never has been, although at its most pure level, it is the conveyance of some emotional state from creator to perceiver, in its eliciting of some emotional response to a piece of work, whether fixed or ephemeral.

If you deny that there is no "clear" 'definition of art', how can you speak of "pure" 'art' in the same breath?


Yes, I have a perfect understanding of the Ubermensch. That is why I said that there would be no need to eliminate emotions, because one would have the freedom of embracing them or abandoning them at will. You speak of completely eliminating emotions. This would constitute an evolutionary regression. I affirm my emotions and their expression. As Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart said, "No emotion is unknown to me."

I said it is about 'mastering' emotions.
If we have mastered ourselves then we can eliminate certain emotions if we so wish.
This is Mastery and not regression but the opposite [which would be Slavery to the emotions].
Mozart was talking about the mastery of his emotions as was Nietzsche.
That's what the Christ-Souled Roman-Caesar is.

However, there is an over-emotional tendency which we can see in things like sentimentality which Nietzsche sought to avoid.

The quality of an emotion should be weighed up against its quantity.


A lack of individuality precludes the ability to be creative and not merely duplicative. The lack of courage to affirm one's individuality is indicative of a weak will. This is all I meant, that an SA ruffian is not the archetypal Ubermensch, nor even an SS stormtrooper.

Not everyone can be an individual. If that were so then there would be o Order of Rank [as Nietzsche calls it] upon which to erect a Master Race.

The many are meant to obey the Master Race, and indeed, the many should take their joy in so doing.

I certainly find the SA and the SS to have some 'aesthetic' value too - don't you?

SuuT
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suut http://forums.skadi.net/images/asgard/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=537031#post537031)
What follows is the full context in which one must take "the Christ-souled Roman Ceasar" from the Will to Power

Not true; you have just quoted "excerpts" from 'The Will to Power' - not the "full context"!

The excerpts provide the "full context" necessary. What would you have me do?-- post the entire book, or a link thereto? Moreover, you, yourself, recognise Nietzsche's work to be an organic whole: shall we simply post every book he wrote?

That might not be such a bad idea...!


...

The aphorism which contains the phrase Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul [ 983] is left out!

Why would I include a section that is already cited in the thread?

Not only that, but the section in which that aphorism appears [6.The Higher man: On the Legislators of the Future] is represented here by only two (2) aphorisms!

You might provide the remainder, and show us how "the Christ Souled Roman Ceasar" boils down to what you say it does; and thereby, connect it to 'Nietzschean christianity.'

We get here aphorism number 966 followed by 981, then 984, and then 1003 - what about all those inbetween!

Fill in the gaps; make your connections.

Only over 40 aphorisms missed out!

...


Again: shall we post the entire opus?

I suggest you read it all, as I have done - including the aphorism which includes the slogan we are actually meant to be talking about.

Why would I read what I have commited to memory in 4 languages!

Your reaching.


Quote:
what is said below: ... is to be taken literally; it is to be taken strictly.
I hardly call missing out huge chunks of the relevant book being "literal" or "strict"!

Depends on what one deems as "relevant", I should think: where have I not given enough of the text to make my (and Nietzsche's, more importantly) point?

Quote:
THE WILL TO POWER: BOOK IV; DISCIPLINE AND BREEDING
Excerpts etc., etc.,
Yes - excerpts which do not even include aphorism 983, wherein we find the "Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul"!

Once more: Why would I include a section that is already cited in this thread?


Quote:
To splice this man's name and his philosophical children ... to his nemesis--to christianity-- ... is the equivalent ... of dragging his naked and bloated corpse through Vatican City so the Pope might spit on it.
Not so - Nietzsche actually liked the prospect of "Cesare Borgia as Pope!" - something he said in a book which you continually cite as evidence!

"I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter - Cesare Borgia as Pope ... Am I Understood?"
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist 61]

You might answer Nietzsche's question!

Cesare Borgia as Pope would either END or INVERT (thereby effectively ending) the papacy because Borgia would do with it as his will desired, not the christ Jesus'.

This section of the antichrist can be found in "full context" in the link I have provided below (a note to all interested parties).

Another formula that you might want to chew on, as Nietzsche also described Borgia as the closest contender for the Ubermensch!

Absolutely. Another appraisal of Nietzsche's I agree with:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3467

Drake
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Narratives, or stories - such as the Norse Myths - clearly teach moral lessons; an important one being that of Honour.
Behaving with Honour even in the face of a certain and decreed fate is a moral lesson.
There is a difference between didactic literature (intended to teach something, such as morality), and purely narrative literature. It can be both, though it mustn't necessarily be. Narrative literature mustn't necessarily teach us something. Also, sometimes we can learn something from literature even though it was not originally intended to be didactic. This does not mean that it is "moral" or intended to impart a moral lesson.

I think the primary difference between the fate of Norse myth and the will of God in Hebrew myth is that in the latter a choice is offered to the Hebrews, for example whether to worship idols or Yahweh, whereas in Norse myth, fate is impersonal and unwilling to concede anything. This says that no matter what one does, there is no way to change one's fate; one must simply deal with it. This is more of an explanation of the nature of reality than a lesson on morals.

There are certainly morals in the Norse myths, but I don't believe that fate offers any substantial moral instruction. Much of moral instruction is based on rewards and punishments; in the Norse mythos there are few of these, because within it one's fate rarely corresponds with one's actions.

You are talking of 'pity' and 'empathy' as if they are the same thing - they are not.
The former is fellow feeling with [Ger. Mitleid] others to the extent that we dissolve ourselves into them in order to totally identify with their suffering and so lose our own objectivity/identity.

While 'empathy' is an intellectualised feeling within ourselves, wherein we are able to internally [em=in] associate with the sufferings [-pathy] of others from are own distant standpoint.

Empathy implies an detachment that is missing in Pity, and as I said before it is the lack of Distance that Nietzsche abhors in Pity.I don't think you are entirely correct in your distinction between pity and empathy. There may in fact be a difference, in that with pity one specifically feels sorrow for another's misfortune; empathy, while it could be broader, constitutes the same thing. From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner."

It is ironic that you suggest that it is the "retention of animalistic instincts" which has led to enviromental degradation, whereas in fact the instinctive Animal Kingdom has not been the cause for such a catastrophe; rather it has been caused by the technology of human society which claims to put Pity for others first.It is true that animals have not devised the means for such wide destruction as human beings have, but if they did, there is no question that they would not hinder themselves from unleashing it against other species, especially not out of pity. While we may claim to put pity and rights first (note you said human rights, not animal rights), it has clearly not been implemented. If we are truly so filled with pity, why isn't anything being done about environmental degredation? If mankind were so filled with pity, we wouldn't be poisoning the world, or ourselves, for that matter. It is because of our distancing ourselves from the organisms that we are harming that it is happening. Only when it begins to have serious effects on us do we begin to do something about it. That is not the correct way to proceed, because by that point, it may be too late.

I made a distinction between pitying amongst equals [giving the example of the Aesir which you repeat here] which is Noble, and pitying those who are lower, which is Ignoble.

In the latter case we are referring to the Christian Morality.

The Baldur myth clearly states that, after Baldur's death [which is a murder engineered by the scheming Loki using the innocent Hod], if everything in the world would weep for Balder then he would be free to return from the Underworld.
Everything does weep except for hard-hearted Loki.

In the case of Christ, he instead willingly gives up his life to atone for the sins of mankind.

Christ God himself has Pity for a mankind of which he is superior - a Pity therefore of the Ignoble kind; whereas in the Eddas, all things Pity Balder [who is higher than them] so this is a Noble Pity.I, myself, was not referring to Christian Morality; I was referring solely to the story of Christ's death, completely disjoined from any moral instruction. This, I suppose, would have to be done after the fact, although, it is contended by most liberal Biblical scholars that the concept of the atoning death of Christ was fabricated later by theologians and it is not even contained in the gospels themselves. Indeed, one has to look very hard to find anything that even remotely resembles this in the gospels. It is only until we come to the epistles of Paul that it is even explicitly mentioned that Christ died in order to expiate the sins of mankind and reconcile mankind to God.

While Christ was supposedly God incarnate, he is a different manifestation than the Father, being the Logos. Christ did willingly give his life, though if one were to believe that the concept of atonement was a later fabrication by Paul and others, Christ died solely for standing up to the temple authorities for, among other things, cleansing the temple twice, if one accepts that John was mentioning a separate incident at the beginning of Christ's ministry.

On the surface, he was primarily killed for opposing the moral authority of the teachers of the law, and for blasphemy, by calling himself the Son of God and making himself equal with God: "Before Abraham was, I AM!" This merited a death sentence under the law, and that is why he was killed. We would hardly consider this worthy of a death sentence; many people today call themselves God all the time.

Christ never truly did anything to deserve being killed. Christ was innocent, just like Baldur. He himself did nothing to deserve dying on a cross. If one accepts this, then it is we who would have pity upon Christ as he hung upon the cross. This is my interpretation of the crucifixion, being completely separate from any morality that has been attached to it.

Christian Morality entreats us to take Pity on the weak, the criminal and the disabled ; Jesus is shown doing just this in the Gospels, and Christians are meant to emulate him.As Nietzsche did, I separate Jesus from Christian Morality, which Nietzsche maintained has become completely antithetical to Jesus' teachings. You should probably consider this deeply, that Nietzsche considered Jesus to be a prototypical Ubermensch, and why he did so. If you read the gospels, you will see that Jesus did not heal everyone he came across. It is made clear, particularly in John's gospel, that he healed for a purpose, and that was to instill faith in him, not to teach people to have pity on cripples. This is evidenced in the fact that when he heard that Lazarus of Bethany was dying, one of Jesus' closest friends, he waited several days before departing for Bethany. Why would he do so, if he did things only out of pity? If you really examine Jesus of Nazareth, you will find only strength.

Further, he didn't instruct people to accomodate others' weakness; he completely eliminated them! He made them healthy and fit. He didn't tell people it was acceptable to engage in criminal behavior. In fact, the criminals that came into contact with him were immediately transformed and lived upright lives, such as the woman who entered the Pharisee's party and wept on Jesus' feet, wiping the tears with her hair (formerly a prostitute). These could be interpreted as an allegory for the self-mastery that Jesus taught.

As an aspect of the general myth of the Unconquered Sun, I think that Caesar would understand this very well;
"Christs may come and Christs may go, but Caesar lives for ever".
[Might is Right]This has not really been demonstrated. Christ has had more impact on more peoples' lives than any Caesar. It would seem to be the opposite of this quote. Christ has survived brutal persecutions of numerous Caesars; their might was insufficient.

I would reiterate myself, in saying that emotion, and its manifestation in art, lives forever.

If you believe that then you are showing similar "feelings" as "some race theorists".Yes, I share the feelings of some, such as Coon, that there are subspecies, but I don't disagree with the universal belief that the human race is a single species.

"Awareness" and "emotions" are not the sole preserve of the various human races; many animals have these features too. We certainly don't include those other animals as 'humans' - do we?

Nietzsche's point is that the differences between humans are more profound than anything they may have in common, and that these differences should be exaggerated.
The Distances must be widened: he called it the 'Pathos of Distance'.Humans are the only ones that are aware of their own mortality. Human emotions are far more profound and complicated than those of animals, just as the human brain is.

'Common experince' is not the same as 'common humanity'. Just because I share similar experiences to you doesn't make me your blood relation.If you recall, you were disputing my statements about a human condition. The human condition, by definition, is based on common experiences. We were not debating blood relations. Whatever one may feel about the differences between races or individuals, there are some aspects of human life that apply to every single human; this and our reactions to it is the human condition. From Webster's New Millenium Dictionary: "human condition: the positive and negative aspects of existence as a human being, esp. the inevitable events such as birth, childhood, adolescence, love, sex, reproduction, aging, and death."

If you deny that there is no "clear" 'definition of art', how can you speak of "pure" 'art' in the same breath?That was my own definition, in an attempt to arrive at a conception of art at its most pure level without going into the minutiae, such as the difference between art and craftsmanship, the intentions of the artist, found art, beauty versus ugliness, etc.

I said it is about 'mastering' emotions.
If we have mastered ourselves then we can eliminate certain emotions if we so wish.
This is Mastery and not regression but the opposite [which would be Slavery to the emotions].
Mozart was talking about the mastery of his emotions as was Nietzsche.
That's what the Christ-Souled Roman-Caesar is.

However, there is an over-emotional tendency which we can see in things like [I]sentimentality which Nietzsche sought to avoid.

The quality of an emotion should be weighed up against its quantity.We seem to be saying the same thing here. I agree that what must be done is master the emotions. But, to describe this as becoming "hard-hearted" suggests a repression or a negation of emotions, an attempt to eradicate them, such as pity.

I suggest that one of the differences between animals and humans is that we have a deeper and broader array of emotions than animals. To repress some of them so as to become "hard-hearted" would seemingly be to become more like animals. If one has mastered the emotions, it would not be impossible to have genuine pity for someone at one moment, and then have blinding and implacable hatred for them the next (or possibly even at the same time). To be hard-hearted is to be one-dimensional. Humans are already multi-dimensional, and should become even more so. Nietzsche himself said through his alter-ego Zarathustra that he wished that even his own "disciples" should be willing to betray him. Everything has its antithesis. If one truly has mastery over his emotions, they truly pose no danger to him, thus there is no need to eradicate them or repress them.

I believe that Mozart was actually referring to the fact that, being a human being, no human emotion was foreign to him, implying that all human emotions had found expression in his music. For example, in the allegro con brio of his Symphony No. 25 K. 183 in G minor, one finds manic, tragic pain and sorrow, followed by mellow lament, followed by youthful exuberance in the modulation to the relative major, followed by spritely playfulness and culminating at the end of the theme in majestic grandeur. If one were to examine one of his mature operas, the array would be far broader.

Not everyone can be an individual. If that were so then there would be o Order of Rank [as Nietzsche calls it] upon which to erect a Master Race.

The many are meant to obey the Master Race, and indeed, the many should take their joy in so doing.

I certainly find the SA and the SS to have some 'aesthetic' value too - don't you?I concur that not all can be individuals. If everyone attempted to become an Ubermensch, the results would be disastrous and terrifying.

I see nothing wrong with fascist aesthetics; I'm just burned out on it, that's all.

Moody
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 05:35 PM
The excerpts provide the "full context" necessary. What would you have me do?-- post the entire book, or a link thereto? Moreover, you, yourself, recognise Nietzsche's work to be an organic whole: shall we simply post every book he wrote?

No - we should rather speak from the benefit of having digested every book he wrote [and those he didn't write].

Only then can we call ourselves Nietzscheans.

What you posted are the standard excerpts available on the 'net at the moment.

You did not make the excerpts yourself.

That is bad scholarship - and lazy to boot.

I have been through the whole book many times and had made notes on the complete subsection 6 [Legislators of the Future] just the other night; and it is from the benefit of those intensive notes that I have spoken about the 'Roman-Caesar with Christ's Soul' here.



You might ... show us how "the Christ Souled Roman Ceasar" boils down to what you say it does; and thereby, connect it to 'Nietzschean christianity.'

I shall 'boil it down' briefly, using my own words, as usual.


The subsection begins with aphorism 972 and advances from there to aphorism 983 which contains our slogan.
Therefore we need to study [at least] for argument's sake aphorisms 972-983.
The excerpts you gave were therefore wholly inadequate.


972 begins by claiming there to be two types of philosopher; the scholar type and the creative type.

Nietzsche is concerned here with only the latter who is described in the subsection's title as a "higher man" and a "legislator of the future".

This task is a destiny which befalls just a few, and history has examples of those who nearly came close to the mark, but "eluded" their destiny when the crunch came.

He names Plato in philosophy and Mohammed in religion as those examples.

This destiny is avoided because few are strong enough to take the task on.

First sign posts; the qualities of 'rareness' and 'strength'.

973 talks of such philosophers needing to heighten their strength to the point of destruction. Nietzsche sees this quality in the "Caesars" and "founders of states".

Next sign post; this philosopher, rare and strong must posses the Caesar like qualities: a conqueror and a creator of nations.

975 talks of the artist's approach to creativity and how that might be translated to the type of a Caesar or Napoleon [think of Nietzsche's formula elsewhere of the "Artist-Tyrant"].
This Caesar is like a [Classical] work of art in himself, more enduring than bronze.
He is also an artist too, who works on mankind in the way that a sculptor works on marble - quite able to ruthlessly cut away the extraneous material.

Next sign post; art as amoral and tyrannical - qualities of the philosopher.

976 tells of the incredible multifarious nature needed; how all kinds of opposites need to be encompassed in one man; how that one man will represent a totality of all men of all types in one.
A raging mass of contradictions; "hard" but "supple".
Just as the Chinese say - if a man be too hard and brittle, then he will break. But if he be supple then he will bend and never break.

This is the signpost which brings in the need for an antithesis to the Caesar-Artist-Tyrant. Here is where we get an intimation that this antithesis [the Christ-Soul] is necessary.

977 Nietzsche makes a quote from an early Christian source in Latin to make this all too clear: et sancta sublimare ['to raise what is holy']

979 makes the statement that the philosopher must be a "legislator".

This signposts the fact that this philosopher will be making rules!

982 this philosopher will not be 'moral' in the usually understood sense. His only 'morality' [which Nietzsche prefers to call a "physical/spiritual discipline"] will be one of the enhancement of strength.

983 then gives us the brilliant slogan to describe the being who all these signposts point to: "the Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul".
This is made clear when he talks in the same aphorism of the need for this type to "master even his benevolence and pity".

This is the type found in Nietzsche's Cesare Borgia as Pope too, which he formulates in his book 'The Antichrist'.

Just as the Church believes that the Antichrist will come as Pope!

Just as Nietzsche wrote his Zarathustra in Biblical language!

Just as Nietzsche called his autobiography Ecce Homo ['behold the man', said when Christ is presented for crucifixion]!

Are ye so blind to not have eyes to see?

Cannot ye see that the prophet of the Antichrist was the son of clergymen on boths sides of his family going back generations?

That is the significance of 'Nietzschean Christianity', although few seem to understand it yet.

Dionysos vs the Crucified in one man's being - eternally.

SuuT
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 07:18 PM
...

...

...

...

...

I have been through the whole book many times and had made notes on the complete subsection 6 [Legislators of the Future] just the other night; and it is from the benefit of those intensive notes that I have spoken about the 'Roman-Caesar with Christ's Soul' here.




I shall 'boil it down' briefly, using my own words...


The subsection begins with aphorism 972 and advances from there to aphorism 983 which contains our slogan.
Therefore we need to study [at least] for argument's sake aphorisms 972-983.
...

972 begins by claiming there to be two types of philosopher; the scholar type and the creative type.

Nietzsche is concerned here with only the latter who is described in the subsection's title as a "higher man" and a "legislator of the future".

This task is a destiny which befalls just a few, and history has examples of those who nearly came close to the mark, but "eluded" their destiny when the crunch came.

He names Plato in philosophy and Mohammed in religion as those examples.

This destiny is avoided because few are strong enough to take the task on.

First sign posts; the qualities of 'rareness' and 'strength'.

973 talks of such philosophers needing to heighten their strength to the point of destruction. Nietzsche sees this quality in the "Caesars" and "founders of states".

Next sign post; this philosopher, rare and strong must posses the Caesar like qualities: a conqueror and a creator of nations.

975 talks of the artist's approach to creativity and how that might be translated to the type of a Caesar or Napoleon [think of Nietzsche's formula elsewhere of the "Artist-Tyrant"].
This Caesar is like a [Classical] work of art in himself, more enduring than bronze.
He is also an artist too, who works on mankind in the way that a sculptor works on marble - quite able to ruthlessly cut away the extraneous material.

Next sign post; art as amoral and tyrannical - qualities of the philosopher.

976 tells of the incredible multifarious nature needed; how all kinds of opposites need to be encompassed in one man; how that one man will represent a totality of all men of all types in one.
A raging mass of contradictions; "hard" but "supple".
Just as the Chinese say - if a man be too hard and brittle, then he will break. But if he be supple then he will bend and never break.

This is the signpost which brings in the need for an antithesis to the Caesar-Artist-Tyrant. Here is where we get an intimation that this antithesis [the Christ-Soul] is necessary.

977 Nietzsche makes a quote from an early Christian source in Latin to make this all too clear: et sancta sublimare ['to raise what is holy']

979 makes the statement that the philosopher must be a "legislator".

This signposts the fact that this philosopher will be making rules!

982 this philosopher will not be 'moral' in the usually understood sense. His only 'morality' [which Nietzsche prefers to call a "physical/spiritual discipline"] will be one of the enhancement of strength.

983 then gives us the brilliant slogan to describe the being who all these signposts point to: "the Roman Caesar with Christ's Soul".
This is made clear when he talks in the same aphorism of the need for this type to "master even his benevolence and pity".

This is the type found in Nietzsche's Cesare Borgia as Pope too, which he formulates in his book 'The Antichrist'.

Just as the Church believes that the Antichrist will come as Pope!

Just as Nietzsche wrote his Zarathustra in Biblical language!

Just as Nietzsche called his autobiography Ecce Homo ['behold the man', said when Christ is presented for crucifixion]!

...

Cannot ye see that the prophet of the Antichrist was the son of clergymen on boths sides of his family going back generations?

(And butchers, by the way...what shall we read into that?)

That is the significance of 'Nietzschean Christianity', although few seem to understand it yet.

Dionysos vs the Crucified in one man's being - eternally.

A fine analysis, truly!

However, you lost me (and yourself) at 'Nietzschean Christianity'--as I knew you would. A man in control of his emotions does not fall so easily into such rudimentary dead-falls.

Its not going to hit you for a while, if ever; but you have now particularised--by your own words; your own analysis--the circumscription by which 'Nietzschean christianity' cannot stall vitiation. Moreover, you have acknowledged the necessary inversion of christianity with the Nietzschean formula of "Borgia as Pope." Inverted christianity is not a union of opposites; it is antichristian.

Borgia as pope is formulaic for not only the inversion (extirpation) of christianity; but also a 'yawp!' from the very throne of the human existential atrophy of christain born, and christian bred nihilism ("Behold the last man!--ineradicable as the flea beetle!")--that a new order of hypertrophy begins; a new day is dawned:

"I have not been asked, as I should have been asked, what the name Zarathustra means in precisely my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist: for what constitutes the tremendous uniqueness of that Persian in history is precisely the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the actual wheel in the working of things: the translation of morality into the realm of metaphysics, as force, cause, end-in-itself, is his work. But this question is itself at bottom its own answer. Zarathustra created this most fateful of errors, morality: consequently he must also be the first to recognize it. Not only has he had longer and greater experience here than any other thinker ... what is more important is that Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker. His teaching, and his alone, upholds truthfulness as the supreme virtue...To tell the truth and to shoot well with arrows: that is Persian virtue--Have I been understood? The self-overcoming of morality through truthfulness, the self-overcoming of the moralist into his opposite--into me--that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth" (F. W. Nietzsche: from "Ecce Homo").

"...The degeneration of rulers and of the ruling classes has made for the greatest mischief in history. Without the Roman Caesars and Roman society, the insanity of Christianity would never have come to rule.
When the lesser men begin to doubt whether there are higher men, then the danger is great...When Nero and Caracalla sat up there, the paradox originated that "the lowest man is worth more than that man up there." And an image of a god was spread which was as far removed as is possible from the image of the most powerful--the god on the cross..." (F.W. Nietzsche: a note made in 1884).

"What is disagreeable and offends my modesty is that at bottom I am every name in history. With the children I have put into this world too, I consider with some mistrust whether it is not the case that all who come into the kingdom of God also come out of God" (F.W. Nietzsche: from a letter to Jacob Burckhardt, January 6, 1889).

"Every name in history" Moody.

This is an allusion.

I wonder if anyone here knows to whom it alludes...

I bet you a christian does!

But, is that christian here...




Incipit Zarathustra.

Moody
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 07:51 PM
There is a difference between didactic literature (intended to teach something, such as morality), and purely narrative literature. It can be both, though it mustn't necessarily be. Narrative literature mustn't necessarily teach us something. Also, sometimes we can learn something from literature even though it was not originally intended to be didactic. This does not mean that it is "moral" or intended to impart a moral lesson.

I have said many times that Christianity is a moral religion.
The whole shape of the religion as well as the stories within it are all meant to teach a particular morality.
Indeed, there is even an internal moral dialogue within Christianity too [ 'the OT says an "eye for an eye" but I say "turn the other cheek" etc.,]

It is noticeable that morality was a key aspect for the Christian missionaries in pagan/barbarian Europe.
The missionaries sought to persuade pagan leaders that the 'Viking' style morality was too divisive and that the only way to create long-term [and proseprous states] was by the adoption of a cohesive Christian morality.
As history tells, the missionaries won the argument .

Now, the Norse myths were written down by Christians.
Therefore they were transmitted by men [such as monks] who were thoroughly imbued with the moral outlook.
Therefore they transmitted the myths very much as moral tales [and not always Christian moral - my interpretation of the Balder myths demonstrates that its is a Viking morality at work here, but a morality in any case].

Compared to the paganism of the ancient Greeks, the Norse myths are far more moral in intent [again, not necessarily Christian morality - Nietzsche said that the Sagas were a fine example of 'Master Morality'].

Look at the things they have spawned recently; Wagner's 'Ring Cycle', and Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' - all thoroughly moral in their thrust].

So I say that we cannot escape from a moral narrative in the Norse tales.


I think the primary difference between the fate of Norse myth and the will of God in Hebrew myth is that in the latter a choice is offered to the Hebrews, for example whether to worship idols or Yahweh, whereas in Norse myth, fate is impersonal and unwilling to concede anything. This says that no matter what one does, there is no way to change one's fate; one must simply deal with it. This is more of an explanation of the nature of reality than a lesson on morals.

How can one be a lesson and the other not?

If the gods are doomed by Ragnarok, why do they fight it when it comes, and try to defeat it?

If there was a blind Fatalism at work here [from which no lesson is possible], then they wouldn't lift a finger.

The point of Wyrd is that one interacts with one's Fate; the web is being woven all the time by the things that we do.

That is why the gods fight at Ragnarok, and that is why Ragnarok is a moral lesson.

Also, we know that the ancient German Heathens practiced the arts of magic and divination, demonstrating that they thought the Norns could be influenced.

Also, if the Nordic peoples had had no interest in morality themselves, it is unlikely that they would have taken to Christianity; clearly they understood the emphasis on morality and identified with it.
Look at the long list of moral do's and don'ts in the pagan Havamal, for example.


Much of moral instruction is based on rewards and punishments; in the Norse mythos there are few of these, because within it one's fate rarely corresponds with one's actions.

Loki is severely punished in the myths for wrong-doing [think of how his genitals were tied to goat, for example!]


I don't think you are entirely correct in your distinction between pity and empathy. There may in fact be a difference, in that with pity one specifically feels sorrow for another's misfortune; empathy, while it could be broader, constitutes the same thing.

The difference can be judged by putting the words in the same sentence;

"I empathise with you".

"I pity you".

Do you react to these two statements in the same way?

If not then they are not the "same thing"


It is true that animals have not devised the means for such wide destruction as human beings have, but if they did, there is no question that they would not hinder themselves from unleashing it against other species, especially not out of pity. While we may claim to put pity and rights first (note you said human rights, not animal rights), it has clearly not been implemented.

Well, some [like Nietzsche] would argue that Pity has been implemented and that it has led to the increase in human population [aid given to Third World countries by guilt/Pity ridden Westerners, for e.g.,], and to down-breeding [anti-racist propaganda based on Pity leading to race-mixing] which in itself has caused enviromental degradation.


If we are truly so filled with pity, why isn't anything being done about environmental degredation? If mankind were so filled with pity, we wouldn't be poisoning the world, or ourselves, for that matter. It is because of our distancing ourselves from the organisms that we are harming that it is happening. Only when it begins to have serious effects on us do we begin to do something about it. That is not the correct way to proceed, because by that point, it may be too late.

'Pity' is not something that is aimed at abstracts like the 'enviroment' or ;the earth'.
It is aimed at lesser creatures than ourselves who have big eyes and big bellies.
'Pity' says "look at all those starving Africans, we must do something to help them".
It doesn't say "a reduction in the Earth's human population will help the enviroment".
Pity is for other [worse off] People, not the Planet.

This is why Nietzsche is against Pity [and why Pity is not the same as Empathy].

Nietzsche said "remain true to the earth".


I was not referring to Christian Morality; I was referring solely to the story of Christ's death, completely disjoined from any moral instruction. This, I suppose, would have to be done after the fact, although, it is contended by most liberal Biblical scholars that the concept of the atoning death of Christ was fabricated later by theologians and it is not even contained in the gospels themselves. Indeed, one has to look very hard to find anything that even remotely resembles this in the gospels. It is only until we come to the epistles of Paul that it is even explicitly mentioned that Christ died in order to expiate the sins of mankind and reconcile mankind to God.

Paul is very much the creator of Christianity, as Nietzsche says; it is Paul who makes the moral interpretation of the Aryan Sun God Myth [although Jesus is himself a moral teacher in the Gospels];

"Christ hath redeemed us us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree"
[Galatians 3:13]

But this is in The New Testament [which is more than just the Gospels] - it is not the invention of later theologians.


Christ died solely for standing up to the temple authorities ... he was primarily killed for opposing the moral authority of the teachers of the law, and for blasphemy ... This merited a death sentence under the law, and that is why he was killed. We would hardly consider this worthy of a death sentence; many people today call themselves God all the time.

That is completely anachronistic; Christ knew what the likely consequences of his actions were going to be. He was also seen as an agitator and a nuisance by the Roman authorities. When the guards came to arrest him he forbade his followers to lift a hand to help him. He knew he was likely to be arrested, tried and executed and did nothing to stop this 'fate'.

There is an interesting parallel here with Socrates who also kind of 'sleep-walked' into his own execution.

Baldur 'died' in a game; he did not transgress against the laws of the authorities in the way that Jesus or Socrates did.

His game was to "tempt fate".


Christ was innocent, just like Baldur. He himself did nothing to deserve dying on a cross. If one accepts this, then it is we who would have pity upon Christ as he hung upon the cross. This is my interpretation of the crucifixion, being completely separate from any morality that has been attached to it.

But you have already admitted that Christ broke the law - the law of the Jews and the law of the Romans; so he was not innocent.

He was supposedly innocent of sin and then like Baldur [but then it is the Christian notion, not the Norse, that we are all (except for God/Jesus) sinful].

As I said near the beginning of this thread; if we see the Christ story as a form of the Aryan Sun God Myth, then we can re-interpret it morally [or divest it of morality].
However, the moral emphasis of the Hebrews and the moral teachings of Christ and the moral interpretation of Paul conspired to make Christainity a very moral religion.



As Nietzsche did, I separate Jesus from Christian Morality, which Nietzsche maintained has become completely antithetical to Jesus' teachings. You should probably consider this deeply, that Nietzsche considered Jesus to be a prototypical Ubermensch, and why he did so.

Not quite; in Zarathustra [where the Ubermensch is preached] Nietzsche says that had Jesus lived longer, he could have been Noble - but he didn't.
Nietzsche says that Jesus wasn't able to overcome the melancholy of the Hebrews and so is disbared from being an Ubermensch.

Of course, at the time of his mission Zarathustra says that there have been no Ubermenschen yet.

So Nietzsche [b]never describes Jesus as an Ubermensch.


If you read the gospels, you will see that Jesus did not heal everyone he came across. It is made clear, particularly in John's gospel, that he healed for a purpose, and that was to instill faith in him, not to teach people to have pity on cripples. This is evidenced in the fact that when he heard that Lazarus of Bethany had died, one of Jesus' closest friends, he waited several days before departing for Bethany. Why would he do so, if he did things only out of pity? If you really examine Jesus of Nazareth, you will find only strength.

The why did he preach the Sermon on the Mount?

"Belssed are the poor in spirit, the mournful, the [b]meek, the hungry, the merciful, the peacemakers, the persecuted etc., etc.,"

And that is in the Gospels!

And when the blind cried out for Jesus to have Pity on them he did!

"And Jesus, deeply moved with Pity, touched their eyes. At once their sight was restored and they followed Him".
[Gospel of Matthew 20:34]


Christ has had more impact on more peoples' lives than any Caesar... Christ has survived brutal persecutions of numerous Caesars; their might was insufficient.

But without the Caesar and the Roman Empire Christianity would never have come to be.


I don't disagree with the universal belief that the human race is a single species.

I do not think that this is a "universal belief"; there are other beliefs which say that the various human races had separate points of evolution.

Whether you believe that all humans had a single point of evolution or separate points makes a tremendous difference in one's overall outlook.


Humans are the only ones that are aware of their own mortality.
Human emotions are far more profound and complicated than those of animals, just as the human brain is.

This is pure anthropomorphic supposition [particularly in your use of loaded words like 'profound' and 'complex' etc.,].

Again, whether you take that view or another one [such as a view influenced by reincarnation] will have a vital impact on one's outlook and ... empathy.


If you recall, you were disputing my statements about a human condition. The human condition, by definition, is based on common experiences. We were not debating blood relations. Whatever one may feel about the differences between races or individuals, there are some aspects of human life that apply to every single human; this and our reactions to it is the human condition. From Webster's New Millenium Dictionary: "human condition: the positive and negative aspects of existence as a human being, esp. the inevitable events such as birth, childhood, adolescence, love, sex, reproduction, aging, and death."

Yes, but as I said before, all of those things mentioned can apply to animals too.
So we have common experiences with all kinds of creatures - where do you draw the line?

Surely the most important philosophical distinction to make is that of difference, whether we be looking at Nietzsche or Derrida.

And this sums up our own conflicting views here; if you start from the point of 'difference', then your view of race, evolution, the animal kingdom, the enviroment, myth, religion will look something like Nietzsche's.

But if you start from the point of 'commonality', then your view will look more like Christianity.

Nietzschean Christianity is a mastering of that Christian moral view; a mastery which precedes its Revaluation.

Revaluation of All (Christian) Values.



I agree that what must be done is master the emotions. But, to describe this as becoming "hard-hearted" suggests a repression or a negation of emotions, an attempt to eradicate them, such as pity.

But isn't 'hardness' an emotion? I could argue that you want to repress hardness!
It is just a different emphasis.

Nietzsche made plain the distinction between Slave Morality [e.g., Paulian Christianity] and Master Morality [Nordic paganism].

He saw the one as being the reversal of the other and vice versa.

Nietzschean Christianity describes the moment when the tables of values are turned once more and Master Morality rules.


I suggest that one of the differences between animals and humans is that we have a deeper and broader array of emotions than animals. To repress some of them so as to become "hard-hearted" would seemingly be to become more like animals.

This is typical of Aristotelian thinking which claims that animals do not have souls whereas men do; it is reductive.

In contrast Nietzsche sets up the Blond Beast as a favoured archetype for the Ubermensch, often using the image of the Lion.

It is part of Aryan culture to relate to animal essences and souls, as in the Norse Berserker.

Whether you like this or not, it is part and parcel of Nietzschean thinking.


To be hard-hearted is to be one-dimensional. Humans are already multi-dimensional, and should become even more so. Nietzsche himself said through his alter-ego Zarathustra that he wished that even his own "disciples" should be willing to betray him. Everything has its antithesis. If one truly has mastery over his emotions, they truly pose no danger to him, thus there is no need to eradicate them or repress them.

There is a need for discipline, says Nietzsche.
But he is not talking to everyone, but only to those Few who are born to lead and to legislate.
Such men will only Pity when it is appropriate for them - and due to their task this will be rarely.

The problem with sentimentality is that it runs away with us and clouds our thinking.
Being soft and over-emotional is one of the great dangers for the men who have to create New Values.
They cannot be weak and indecisive

Related to this, Nietzsche also wants to make the Distance between men and women greater.

Let women Pity - it is not a becoming emotion for those higher men who are to be the legislators of the future.


I believe that Mozart was actually referring to the fact that, being a human being, no human emotion was foreign to him, implying that all human emotions had found expression in his music.

Actually Mozart's music is characterised by its Noble restraint and refinement if we compare it to other musics.

SuuT
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 01:55 PM
One last thing needs to be cleared up before I leave Moderator Lawless to his efforts to proselytise his Round-Square, and spreading of disingenuous expression of gratitude as an attempt to dissimulate how in control of his emotions he actually is:

Zitat Moderator Lawless: "No Aryan Sun Gods post-date Christ? Do you have an earlier version of the Baldur myth tucked away somewhere?
As far as I know the Eddas post-date Christ.
If you have evidence to the contrary then we may be onto a publishing coup."

The Northern Tradition, which I was born into, has always been, and still is, an orally transmitted Mythos. I did not even know the Eddas existed until I had 16 years of age (Snorri Sturluson dramaticised an existing oral tradition--and took some creative liberty: Remember--he, too, was a politician!). In fact, I recall being markedly upset with my mother that she hadn't told me that we had a book. "We have a book!" I said to myself.

I immediately asked her why she hadn't told me, and her reply was: "Too much Jesus; not enough wisdom."

The Baldr mythos (the entire Northern Tradition) pre-dates the christ Jesus by thousands of years--if not more. The Eddas do reflect the essence of the oral transmission. However, if it smells like the christ Jesus, as a general rule of thumb, one may dismiss it.

Paganism did not fall off of a flat Earth with the advent and imposition of christianity--it went underground; and was kept underground. Entire peoples still practice the religion of there ancient forebares.

This brings up another very important point: with the comming of christianity, proud and stalwart Pagans did not simply toss-up their collective hands and say: "well, old boy, looks like we've lost this one--praise Jesus, I guess". Although, to be fair, a lot did. These are refered to as "the ones lost" or "the lost ones"--it sounds much more poetic in the right language.


Punctuatus


What is more important than this is blood memory: perhaps the most convincing argument that genuine Pagans face is "well, you are a modern and it is therefore impossible for you to practise a religion that has not been documented prior to the prose eddas, which everyone knows via deduction was irreversibly coloured by christianity, and therefore your deluding yourself and actually worshiping something else."


These arguments mean nothing. And I mean that--nothing.


A wise man once said that (to paraphrase) one's blood will out.


One who has mastered themself, and is therefore honest with themself, has nothing to prove to these rhetors and politicians.


To be in union to exactly what is behind "the mask"--to be in union with one's blood, is all that is needed to bring forth, out of the depths of that blood memory, the pure and authentic Pagan in all well-breds, and fortunate accidents of nature.


Will you awaken this Pagan? and you? and you? What if you had to!


What if...:


"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your live will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence--even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!' Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change, you as you are or perhaps crush you" (Nietzsche: from The Joyful Wisdom/Science).

Moody
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 04:12 PM
The Northern Tradition, which I was born into, has always been, and still is, an orally transmitted Mythos.

It is not unique in that - oral transmission predated writing everywhere, as everyone should know.


I did not even know the Eddas existed until I had 16 years of age (Snorri Sturluson dramaticised an existing oral tradition--and took some creative liberty: Remember--he, too, was a politician!).

Only "Some" (?) 'liberty'!
He only connected the Aesir with Asia and the Trojans, that's all!


The Baldr mythos (the entire Northern Tradition) pre-dates the christ Jesus by thousands of years--if not more.

By the 'Balder mythos' we are referring here to the story(s) where he is slain [there are two known accounts, one which describes a spear of mistletoe and another which refers to a magic sword] and goes to Hel and requires the Pity of all to return.

There is no evidence that this (very 'christian') mythos predates Christ, even if we can be sure that Baldur himself does.

Remember that Caesar tells us that the Germans of 2,000 years ago were not particularly religious, had no priests [essential to the transmission of morality stories], and worshipped only things that they could see, such as the sun the moon and the stars.
It was rather the Celtic Druids who had an elaborate mythology replete with priests etc.,
It is likely that late Nordic mythology was influenced by the Celts and Christianity.


The Eddas do reflect the essence of the oral transmission. However, if it smells like the christ Jesus, as a general rule of thumb, one may dismiss it.

Let your bloodhound loose with a red pen so that he can sniff out all the Christian elements in the Eddas [Elder and Younger], and Beowulf etc.,
See what's left!
There's a job for you.


Paganism did not fall off of a flat Earth with the advent and imposition of christianity--it went underground; and was kept underground. Entire peoples still practice the religion of there ancient forebares.

No one has said anything to the contrary - why state the obvious [although the 'underground' theories of Margaret Murray etc., tend to be discounted today because she was very selective with her evidence].

The point is this; there is no evidence for the Baldur mythos pre- the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, let alone before the advent of Christ!

By the time that the Eddas were written down by Christians, the Germanic and Nordic tribes had long been in contact with the Celtic [who had early adopted Christianity], Latin and Christian cultures for centuries!

The Balder mythos smacks of the Passion of Christ, and there is no evidence that it predates the Christ story.
Use Okham's razor here as you do elsewhere.

Until you provide some decent scholarship on the matter you will continue to delude yourself about all things "Northern" and "Germanic".


These arguments mean nothing. And I mean that--nothing.

They are at least 'arguments', and are based on evidence of fact; just repeating "nothing" is not an argument and presents no new evidence; it is pure blind faith.

As Nietzsche said in the book you frequently quote from, "Faith is no argument".

The whole question of how much Christianity influenced paganism/heathenism, and how much paganism/heathenism influenced Christianity is an important one.

It needs works like that of Titcomb's classic 'Aryan Sun Myths'; what it does not need is constant baseless and self-important assertions which do not exhibit a shred of evidence or truth.

So you are doing the cause of Germanic Heathenry no favours here, anymore than you have helped an understanding of Nietzschean Christianity with your stubborn mantra of "this shouldn't be allowed"!

You have not understood what the Revaluation of Values entails and why Nietzsche used such slogans as Christ Souled Roman Caesar and Cesare Borgia as Pope to indicate it, anymore than Drake has understood why early pagans saw the Christ as another Aryan Sun God.

We must always be prepared to have our paradigms shaken and our confort-zones discomfitured.

You are too safe, Suut.

SuuT
Monday, September 18th, 2006, 10:21 AM
...You are too safe, Suut.

Well, you are right in a sense: I am quite comfortable with the arguments as I have presented them (I have presented them); also, where I have chosen to put reason and faith at odds with one another by will.

There is really no need to give your psychoanalysis of me; or a need to rive your resume to make rhetorical points: this a your...quirk--I suppose is how it could be put; and it appears without fail when you are 'cornered'.

Why not rather concentrate on 'Nietzschean christianity'?: we clearly represent two different sides of a coin here; and thus far you have been soundly beaten.

I suppose you could go on with the 'squeeky wheel gets the grease' approach: but to what end--who does this sort of approach rouse? Moreover, you could take notice that there are probably only a handful of individuals here that recognise that you have been soundly beaten.

Wouldn't you rather win an argument from princliple, standard, demonstration and/or conviction...?

I think you would (I hope you would!).

So: tell us more about 'Nietzschean christianity', as many people are going to be quite confused and suffer poor 'digestion' of Nietzsche if they have never read him, and only after trusting your appraisal, decide to pick him up.

Moody
Monday, September 18th, 2006, 05:50 PM
So: tell us more about 'Nietzschean christianity', as many people are going to be quite confused and suffer poor 'digestion' of Nietzsche if they have never read him, and only after trusting your appraisal, decide to pick him up.

To the superficial eye, "Nietzschean Christianity" has something of the 'paradoxical' about it, as does Nietzsche's "Christ-Souled Roman-Caesar" and "Cesare Borgia as Pope".

But in Nietzschean philosophy these are not 'paradoxes', so much as evocations of dynamic polarities.

The essential concept is that of mastering seemingly oppositional polarities.

Last night I read Sir Oswald Mosley's 1957 review of Colin Wilson's book The Outsider, where Mosley makes some points which illustrate this;

"Jaeger (Paideia) quotes Pythagoras to express something of the same thought;
'that which opposes, fits; different elements make the finest harmony ever'.
Were these 'once born' people really much less adult than the Outsider in his understanding that [i]'if you subject a man to extremes of heat and cold, he develops resistence to both'?
Perhaps they even understood that if we subject ourselves to more interesting extremes we may learn to achieve Mr Wilson's desire (and how right he is in this) 'to live more abundantly'...."
[Mosley, from a review of Wilson's 'The Outsider', originally in the journal 'The European' (1957), reprinted in 'Colin Wilson, a Celebration' ed. by C. Stanley]

"Kierkegaard concluded that you cannot live a philosophy, but you 'can live a religion'; but the attempt of this pious pastor to live his religion did not restrain him from 'violently attacking the Christian Church ...' ..."


"The polarity of Greek thought was closely observed & finely interpreted by Nietzsche in diverse ways .... Mr Wilson moves towards this way of thinking [when] he writes [i]'the whole was necessary' ..."
[ib.,]

In a nut-shell it is necessary that the Antichrist be a Christian.

SuuT
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 01:30 AM
"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Overman--a rope over an abyss.

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is
lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.

I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.

I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order that the Overman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.

I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Overman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going.

I love him who loveth his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going,
and an arrow of longing.

I love him who reserveth no share of spirit for himself, but wanteth to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walketh he as spirit over the
bridge.

I love him who maketh his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for
the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.

I love him who desireth not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a
virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny to cling
to.

I love him whose soul is lavish, who wanteth no thanks and doth not give back: for he always bestoweth, and desireth not to keep for himself.

I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asketh: "Am I a dishonest player?"--for he is willing to succumb.

I love him who scattereth golden words in advance of his deeds, and always doeth more than he promiseth: for he seeketh his own down-going.

I love him who justifieth the future ones, and redeemeth the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones.

I love him who chasteneth his God, because he loveth his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God.

I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goeth he willingly over the bridge.

I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgetteth himself, and all
things are in him: thus all things become his down-going.

I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only
the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causeth his down-going.

I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark
cloud that lowereth over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds.

Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the OVERMAN..."

Thus Spake Zarathustra

Moody
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 02:03 PM
"Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Overman--a rope over an abyss ...
Thus Spake Zarathustra

"The opposition established by the author of Thus Spake Zarathustra between Dionysos & the Crucified One is not the opposition between surging vital energy, content with itself, & a morbid taste for suffering, but actually the opposition between a tragic way of living through suffering & the Christian way of tolerating it. There is a bond between the truth of the Eternal Return of the Same & the renewal of the sufferings we endure".
[de Benoist, 'On Being a Pagan' page 163]

"Sir Oswald Mosely argued that Nietzschean thought & Chrisianity were capable of synthesis, & that two apparent opposites had been reconciled in fascism".
[T Linehan, 'British Fascism 1918-39]

"Fascism sought a set of syntheses ... between the faith & sevice of Christianity & the heroism of Classical thought ..."
[Roger Eatwell, 'Fascism A Reader']

"In the last century, the major intellectual struggle arose from the tremendous impact of Nietzschean thought on Christian civilisation of two thousand years.

That impact was only very slowly realised.

Its full implications are only today working themselves out.

But turn where you will in modern thought, you will find the results of that struggle for mastery of the mind & the spirit of man ...

I believe that the Nietzschean & the Christian doctrines are capable of synthesis ...

On the one hand you find in the Christian conception, the immense vision of service, of self-abnegation, of self-sacrifice in the cause of others, in the cause of the world, in the cause of your country; not the elimination of the individual, so much as the fusion of the individual in something far greater than himself; & you have that basic doctrine of Fascism, service, self-surrender to what the Fascist must conceive to be the greatest cause & the greatest impulse in the world.

On the other hand, you find taken from Nietzschean thought the virility, the challenge to all existing things which impede the march of mankind, the absolute abnegation of the doctrine of surrender; the firm ability to grapple with & to overcome all obstructions.

You have, in fact, the creation of a doctrine of men of vigour & of self-help which is the outstanding characteristic of Fascism ...
A movement emerges ... the last great wave of the immortal, the eternally recurring Caesarian movement ..."
[Mosley, 'The philosophy of Fascism', 1935]

Arrian
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 07:33 PM
[Mosley, 'The philosophy of Fascism', 1935]


"Through Christianity, the individual was made so important, so absolute, that he could no longer be sacrificed: but the species endures only through human sacrifice.
All "souls" became equal before God: but this is precisely the most dangerous of all possible evaluations! If one regards individuals as equal, one calls the species into question, one encourages a way of life that leads to the ruin of the species: Christianity is the counter-principle to the principle of selection. ...unnaturalness becomes law."
- Will to Power, 246


Is sacrifice the best attribute to be extracted from Christianity? Why? Even Odin's self-sacrifice won runes for his kindred and is well capable of setting an example by itself for fascism.

In my mind, I think you were right about the earlier "hard but supple" principle - I think Christianity has a greater role to play here.

In Homer's contest, Nietzsche speaks in favor of the Greeks for ostracizing the repeated winners of certain contests. He criticizes the deification of success and constant hegemony or dominance, because a real love of agonistics stands very opposed to this.

"it desires as a preventive against the genius--a second genius."

"which assumes that in the natural order of things there are always several geniuses which incite one another to action, as much also as they hold one another within the bounds of moderation."

"this peculiar institution however is not that of a safety-valve but that of a stimulant."

The stimulant for an agon is very much engaged upon the value of superiority - who is best, and thus, they say, "Among us nobody shall be the best"...


By being the counter-principle to the principle of selection, Christianity is a great dynamic to the love of agon, which is one of the cores of fascism. And if the hard Caesar must play, he must first imbibe that Christian suppleness to 'sacrifice' his own constant hegemony for such an 'equality' as "among us nobody shall be the best" and brave and welcome such and all kinds of stimulants.

Arrian
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 08:00 PM
"In how far the Christian centuries with their pessimism were stronger centuries than the eighteenth century - like the tragic era of the Greeks.
...in what respects progress (darker, more realistic, stronger)."

- Will to Power, 102

Nietzsche associates Christian strength with pessimism. What gives it this pessimism?

SuuT
Thursday, September 21st, 2006, 09:01 PM
The Hammer Speaks



"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?" "Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not, after all, my brothers? Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?


And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?


And if your hardness doth not wish to flash and cut and cut through, how do you expect to one day create with me?


For all creators are hard.


And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millenia, as on wax.


Blessedness to write on the will of millenia as on bronze--harder than bronze, nobler than bronze.


Only the noblest is altogether hard.


This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you:


Become hard!"

"The most general formula on which every religion and morality is founded is: "Do this and that, refrain from this and that—then you will be happy! Otherwise ..." Every morality, every religion, is this imperative; I call it the great original sin of reason, the immortal unreason. In my mouth, this formula is changed into its opposite—first example of my "revaluation of all values": a well-turned-out human being, a "happy one," must perform certain actions and shrinks instinctively from other actions; he carries the order, which he represents physiologically, into his relations with other human beings and things. In a formula: his virtue is the effect of his happiness ... A long life, many descendants—these are not the wages of virtue: rather virtue itself is that slowing down of the metabolism which leads, among other things, also to a long life, many descendants—in short, to Cornarism.— The church and morality say: "A generation, a people, are destroyed by license and luxury." My recovered reason says: when a people approaches destruction, when it degenerates physiologically, then license and luxury follow from this (namely, the craving for ever stronger and more frequent stimulation, as every exhausted nature knows it). This young man turns pale early and wilts; his friends say: that is due to this or that disease. I say: that he became diseased, that he did not resist the disease, was already the effect of an impoverished life or hereditary exhaustion. The newspaper reader says: this party destroys itself by making such a mistake. My higher politics says: a party which makes such mistakes has reached its end—it has lost its sureness of instinct. Every mistake in every sense is the effect of the degeneration of instinct, of the disintegration of the will: one could almost define what is bad in this way. All that is good is instinct—and hence easy, necessary, free. Laboriousness is an objection, the god is typically different from the hero (in my language: light feet are the first attribute of divinity)" (Nietzsche: From Twilight of the Idols).


"The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it represents a great triumph over Christianity. Another triumph is our spiritualisation of hostility. It consists in a profound appreciation of the value of having enemies: in short, it means acting and thinking in the opposite way from that which has been the rule. The church always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immoralists und Antichristians, find our advantage in this, that the church exists. In the political realm too, hostility has now become more spiritual—much more sensible, much more thoughtful, much more considerate. Almost every party understands how it is in the interest of its own self-preservation that the opposition should not lose all strength..." (Nietzsche: From Twilight of the Idols)


"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony" (Heraclitus).

Moody
Friday, September 22nd, 2006, 02:01 PM
Is sacrifice the best attribute to be extracted from Christianity? Why? Even Odin's self-sacrifice won runes for his kindred and is well capable of setting an example by itself for fascism.

The sacrifice is different; notice that Mosley talks of the sacrifice for the sake of others [Odin didn't sacrifice himself for others, but for his Self - "My self given to my Self"]; he talks of the need for self-abnegation.

This may bring us back again to the reason that Christianity took over from, or rather melded with, paganism.

A creed which is purely selfish may work for the few as long as they are on top, but will stand them in no stead when things turn against them.

Indeed, the 'slave revolt in morals' occurred because the Master Race were indifferent to the feelings of others and could not see the danger that lurked in the mass of discontents.

So Christianity had to teach the need to look to the feelings others - and more importantly for the Rulers - the need for the masses to sacrifice themselves for the higher cause which their leaders represented.

The problem with the Blond Beast was that he never held his position long enough.
After conquering docile tribes his love of war at all costs meant that he cut down his own numbers ; his natural arrogance meant that the lower castes had no sympathy for him either, as I have said.

In order to create a real Ubermensch caste to survive over millennia, the short-termism of the Blond Beast must be surpassed.

So while the Christian ethos preserves the "botched" [and must be cured of this mistake], the Aristocratic ethos also squanders the best blood needlessly in a kind of pointless orgy of internecine violence.

The 'Christ-souled Roman-Caesar' signifies that ethos which will preserve and nuture the best blood, while keeping the worst blood at a manageable level solely as an instrument to service the overall cause.

Mosley [as one born into the aristocracy going back to the Norman Conquest] had seen these mistakes and learnt from them.

He knew that his class was born to rule - but how many of them cared by then?

Mosley didn't need to put his wealth and reputation on the line and go into politics - he could've lived a comfortable leisure existence amongst the upper crust.
But he felt that pressure of [i]duty; he felt too that if the Folk were to be helped then he must win their respect; once done, then they will sacrifice themselves for a greater cause.

So we see a combination of the Nietzschean Master Morality working with principles derived from Christianity in order to achieve something in the real world, rather in the world of abstract philosophical theory.



Nietzsche associates Christian strength with pessimism. What gives it this pessimism?

What Nietzsche called 'The Pessimism of Strength' entails embracing a full-on pessimism [such as Existentialism, or Christian Apocalyptics] and yet not finding this to be a source for despair and surrender, but as a springboard to a zest for life and victory.

Arrian
Friday, September 22nd, 2006, 06:36 PM
The sacrifice is different; notice that Mosley talks of the sacrifice for the sake of others [Odin didn't sacrifice himself for others, but for his Self - "My self given to my Self"]; he talks of the need for self-abnegation.
This may bring us back again to the reason that Christianity took over from, or rather melded with, paganism.
A creed which is purely selfish may work for the few as long as they are on top, but will stand them in no stead when things turn against them.
Indeed, the 'slave revolt in morals' occurred because the Master Race were indifferent to the feelings of others and could not see the danger that lurked in the mass of discontents.
So Christianity had to teach the need to look to the feelings others - and more importantly for the Rulers - the need for the masses to sacrifice themselves for the higher cause which their leaders represented.


Yes, I agree, Odin sacrifices himself for himself, but what he wins, this 'mead of poesy', he wins for all.
In Will to Power, 52, Nietzsche speaks of altruism and solidarity.

"The growth of physiological and moral ills among mankind is the consequence of a pathological and unnatural morality."

Altruism is Unnatural.

Unnaturalness results in corruption, in degeneracy, in illness.

Thus there can be no solidarity in a society with such "unproductive", "sterile" elements.

Altruism negates Solidarity.

I feel the kind of Sacrifice that strengthens true solidarity cannot be unnatural, or as he puts it, when it has no true roots in the physiology.



The 'Christ-souled Roman-Caesar' signifies that ethos which will preserve and nuture the best blood, while keeping the worst blood at a manageable level solely as an instrument to service the overall cause.

I agree with this.

"Supposing that the faith in this morality would perish, then the underprivileged would no longer have their comfort - and they would perish."
- ib., 55

In the 47th section, he writes, if evil be regarded as disharmony, then the good may be thought of as a "protective diet" against the danger of this disharmony.
So I think that the Christ-souled-Caesar would make of himself this kind of "protective diet" not against disharmony per se, but the danger of it.



But he felt that pressure of duty; he felt too that if the Folk were to be helped then he must win their respect; once done, then they will sacrifice themselves for a greater cause.
So we see a combination of the Nietzschean Master Morality working with principles derived from Christianity in order to achieve something in the real world, rather in the world of abstract philosophical theory.

Was Hitler inspired with the love of volk and winning their respect from Christianity? Would you say he was a Christ-souled-Caesar?

I don't know how tolerance and sensitivity for others' feelings which you say Chrsitianity taught can be reconciled with their most intolerant persecution of pagans...



What Nietzsche called 'The Pessimism of Strength' entails embracing a full-on pessimism [such as Existentialism, or Christian Apocalyptics] and yet not finding this to be a source for despair and surrender, but as a springboard to a zest for life and victory.

Thank you.

Then Nietzsche meant christianity's strong point is in its 'never give up' faith or attitude even through the dark times; it is sort of like a protective veil against the harsh light(darkness) of reality, delaying and containing the explosion to tragic truths.

SuuT
Friday, September 22nd, 2006, 07:33 PM
(I hope Arrian will excuse my interjection)


The sacrifice is different; notice that Mosley talks of the sacrifice for the sake of others [Odin didn't sacrifice himself for others, but for his Self - "My self given to my Self"]; he talks of the need for self-abnegation.

You don't understand the psychology or the dynamism of the Northern Tradition; there is no book that will help: Odin's sacrifice was an absolution to the whole and, as part of the whole, was better able to know immutability as chosen fate. Odin's sacrifice was necessary, fatalistic, and quite giving, even though he be the Earthly hierarch that chose (and this is key) Fate over Chance, without destroying the opportunity for that same choice for the merely mortal.

This may bring us back again to the reason that Christianity took over from, or rather melded with, paganism.

Which Pagan elements outside of the strictly procedural and symbological still exist in christianity today? Was there not a protracted diminishment once christianity was accepted?--once it won favour, did not the sheep in wolf's clothing materialise to the point where no one had to squint any longer to see it?

Is christianity really confusing anymore?

A creed which is purely selfish may work for the few as long as they are on top, but will stand them in no stead when things turn against them.

Indeed, the 'slave revolt in morals' occurred because the Master Race were indifferent to the feelings of others and could not see the danger that lurked in the mass of discontents.

So Christianity had to teach the need to look to the feelings others - and more importantly for the Rulers - the need for the masses to sacrifice themselves for the higher cause which their leaders represented.

You make this seem political (it was, of course, in part); however, the universailism of christianity is a biblical moral edict that morphed into congruence with scripture as the mixing of slave and master morality--as a result of slavish and masterly biological lines crossing--predominated the European psyche post Constantine and the death of the Arian creed of christianity.

The problem with the Blond Beast was that he never held his position long enough.

After conquering docile tribes his love of war at all costs meant that he cut down his own numbers ; his natural arrogance meant that the lower castes had no sympathy for him either, as I have said.

In order to create a real Ubermensch caste to survive over millennia, the short-termism of the Blond Beast must be surpassed.

Perhaps. But if so, it must again be reached by more than the smattering of individuals that are spread out across the globe in the now so as to ignite [I]the fire. Are you purposely presenting a markedly posthumous theme?

Moreover, how does one alter the current state of christianity (a practicable logistics is required, no?) so that it will relinquish the religio-moral, and subsequent trickle-down power that it derives from the state that it is in in the now? In other words, without lying a lie like no other ever been told--even one that would exceed the lie of christianity e.g. 'evil', and what it is--how does one reposition a mass that is perfectly comfortable as being the mass?

So while the Christian ethos preserves the "botched" [and must be cured of this mistake], the Aristocratic ethos also squanders the best blood needlessly in a kind of pointless orgy of internecine violence.

I think this polarity only exists in rhetorical abstract. It illustrates your point, yes; but is too general to affect or effect any sound historiographical depiction of any conquering race to have hitherto existed. In short, its a little too rhetorical: "war at all cost", "internecine violence", "purely selfish", "indifferent to the feelings of others"--is this what you truly understand the Aristocratic ethos to be?

What conquering peoples (pick any!--leave Europe if it pleases you!) in history that enjoyed any longevity were these things and not also their opposite?

"....what caused the greatest sucess for the conquering peoples of every aeon is not that they were necessarily physically stronger, but that they threw themselves upon psychically weaker peoples" (Nietzsche: BGE).

You describe a Hun, if afraid--not an Aristocrat.

The 'Christ-souled Roman-Caesar' signifies that ethos which will preserve and nuture the best blood, while keeping the worst blood at a manageable level solely as an instrument to service the overall cause.

Do we tell the "botched" and the "worst blood" that they are so?

What level is "manageable"?

...

So we see a combination of the Nietzschean Master Morality working with principles derived from Christianity in order to achieve something in the real world, rather in the world of abstract philosophical theory.

...We do?...Where?

What is your particularised (practicable) acumen?

What is 'Nietzschean christianity' outside of a philosophical/theosophical abstraction?

Do not the rudiments evade us?

Why might this be?


:D Why do you talk as if everything that is today known as 'kind' or 'altruistic' or 'sensitive' is of christian origin??--this is vexing; and not a little humourous!--there was no love prior to Jesus! (I'm being spirited, but the question is serious.) Is it because Jesus is an exemplar of love in your mind?

...

Moody
Saturday, September 23rd, 2006, 06:28 PM
Yes, I agree, Odin sacrifices himself for himself, but what he wins, this 'mead of poesy', he wins for all.

I believe that they were won for the aristocracy; as Odin's Rune Song in the Havamal says;

"Now are sung the
High One's (rune) songs,
In the High One's hall,
To the sons of men all-useful,
But useless to the Jotun's sons.
Hail to him who has sung them".
[Havamal 166]



Altruism is Unnatural.

It may be 'unnatural' to a Noble; but not everyone can be a Noble.

However, altruism is to be inculcated, if necessary, into the serving classes who must be taught that they are to give of their own lives to serve the greater cause.

A selfish underclass are of no use to themselves or anyone else.

It is important to recognise that the process of 'discipline and breeding' may go against what is 'natural'.


Unnaturalness results in corruption, in degeneracy, in illness.

There are many kinds of natures; to make a Nobleman altruistic and servile would no doubt cause him to degenerate and get ill.
Just as if a servant is given the role of a leader he will be clueless and not last five minutes.
Horses for courses.
There is not, I repeat, just one kind of 'nature'.

If discipline is used to correct a natural fault [such as laziness]; if breeding is used to create a certain specialised race; is that discipline and breeding 'unnatural'?

Certain pedigree breeds may be 'unnatural', but they are often superior to wild breeds.

Aristotle thought that many men were "natural slaves".

It is 'natural' for some people to obey, to serve, and to therefore display altruism.


Thus there can be no solidarity in a society with such "unproductive", "sterile" elements.

True; those who serve are not 'unproductive' or 'sterile' [far from it!]. They are doing something of vital importance.


Altruism negates Solidarity.

Surely the altruism of a mother who sacrifices her own life to save her first born son is aiding the solidarity of the race.
Surely the altruism of a soldier who sacrifices his own life to defend his nation is aiding the solidarity of his nation.


Was Hitler inspired with the love of volk and winning their respect from Christianity? Would you say he was a Christ-souled-Caesar?

I would say that - and I am glad you ventilated that.
You are very right; Hitler was the 'Roman Caesar' [National-] with the 'Christ-Soul' [-Socialist].
As it was often said; 'if you love your people you are socialist, and if you love your nation you are nationalist: be a national-socialist'.
I remember William Joyce writing this; he was this kind of a Christian NS.

Fascism/NS is a form of Nietzschean Christianity!
It needn't mention Christ or Nietzsche, but it has those underlying currents.


I don't know how tolerance and sensitivity for others' feelings which you say Chrsitianity taught can be reconciled with their most intolerant persecution of pagans...

Christianity was never purely Christian.
It was a pagan/Christian hybrid.
If we look at the Order of the Teutonic Knights who persecuted pagans in the Baltic at the behest of the popes, we see that they were very much a pagan type of Order.

And Paganism believes in struggle and conflict as a main plank of its philosophy.
This is why Hitler called his book My Struggle - he was thinking as a pagan.

Paganism believes in strife, not peace.
So when the Crusaders set out, they set out as Vikings [as Nietzsche said], not as 'Christians'.


Then Nietzsche meant christianity's strong point is in its 'never give up' faith or attitude even through the dark times; it is sort of like a protective veil against the harsh light(darkness) of reality, delaying and containing the explosion to tragic truths.

Nietzsche used the image of the long-bow.
Christianity had caused a tremendous tension on the bow-string of European man.
It had stretched it to breaking point, holding the arrow ready to be launched at the very highest of targets.

It was the job of the philosophers of the furture, said Nietzsche, to select the target and then cause that sudden release of the bow to let the arrow fly in that kind of "explosion" you speak of.

SuuT
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 02:28 AM
(Please excuse me one last time, Arrian)


I believe that they (the Runes) were won for the aristocracy; as Odin's Rune Song in the Havamal says;

"Now are sung the
High One's (rune) songs,
In the High One's hall,
To the sons of men all-useful,
But useless to the Jotun's sons.
Hail to him who has sung them".
[Havamal 166]



You don't understand the psychology or the dynamism of the Northern Tradition.

1.) The jotnar represent (in general) ugliness, chaos, pure chance, lack of discipline, the fracture of physique and mind, a blank etc.

2.) Age has never dictatated Manhood in the Northern Tradition. It still doesn't. The "sons of men" is an allusion to the keeping of the family line pure for preparation for travel into Jotunheimr so that one would return unscathed and worthy of honour after battling what the jotnar (generally) represent.

3.) The children of jotnar are unworthy of manhood, as they come back (or never traverse Jotunheimr) from battling what the jotnar (generally) represent having lost; and, therefore, are the children of ugliness, chaos, chance, lack of discipline, a fractured physique/mind relation. Elders (usually women) are to assay the success or failure.

4.) These individuals are willingly sacrificed first, as it is considered the reparation and wages of honourable failure, and inables one's name to live and be spoken: a state of lesser immortality, as the wisdom of the Runes will escape them. Always.

A second option, for total failures and cowards, is banishment: no one knows the names of the banished--they, in effect, never existed.

5.) Men, as having proven themselves as such in not only battle but in the creation of character that is central to Norse cosmology, are the majority in the 'Tribe', and are known to produce better offspring, thereby keeping the promise of more Men.

6.) Sometimes the jotnar and he who battles them compromise and breed. These cultivations have sacrificed the knowledge of the runes for godhood/other-worldly immortality (whereas the singer/knower of the Runes wins his immortality by fame; the continuation of his name in glorified oral prose).

7.) Men, as explained, and their kindred, may harness the power of the Runes and sing the glory of wisdom.

8.) One is a Man; or one is not.

9.) The jotnar cannot produce Men; therefore, the Runes are useless to the conceptions of the jotnar as they do not occupy Miðgarðr--the focal point from which Men, as described, may traverse the worlds so long as they know how to unclench the teeth of Jormungand from his own tail.

Call me crazy, but this sounds a lot like...'Nietzscheanism!'

Sometimes to create something new, we have to regress. The danger is not having the wisdom to know when we are retrogressing, instead.

Nietzsche was quite fond of using the word "atavism", and always used it in an affirmative sense:

at-a-vism

1.Biology. a.the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations. b.an individual embodying such a reversion. 2.reversion to an earlier type; throwback.


[Origin: 1825–35; < L atav(us) remote ancestor (at-, akin to atta familiar name for a grandfather + avus grandfather, forefather)]

Moody
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 06:07 PM
You don't understand the psychology or the dynamism of the Northern Tradition.

So you keep repeating; are you working on the theory that if you keep repeating something that it will eventually become true?

Your interpretation of Odin's Rune Song is hardly supported by the text; you have overlarded that text somewhat with an incongrous metaphysics.

Paganism itself continued to evolve even when Christianity was adopted; hence the symbiosis between the two.
The Trinity, for example, is comparable to the frequent triads in the Heathen tradition, mentioned as far back as in Tacitus.

Nietzsche's conceptions of 'Cesare Borgia as Pope', and the 'Christ-souled Roman Caesar', point to the political bias of 'Nietzschean Christianity'.

It is tied up with Nietzsche's ideas about the future Masters of earth.

This entails not working with what is called the institution of 'Christianity' [the established churches etc.,], but with the residue of 'Christianity' which permeates the mass culture and is unavoidably inherited by the Western Civilisation.

Hitherto, the aristocratic ethos has been too self-destructive.
This is why many masses survive from history, while the aristocratic classes which once ruled them do not.
See how Rome lifted its restrictions on race-mixing and gradually opened up citizenship to all her inhabitants.
By these kind of self-imposed horrors the aristocracy destroyed itself.

Nietzsche bemoaned the fact that the exceptional, rare individuals were all too infrequent and easily destroyed.

As Yeats said, 'the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of a passionate intensity'.

The project of the Ubermensch is to make this rare species 'more enduring than bronze'.

Both Caesarism and Christianity are the rocket fuel for that project which is spearheaded by Nietzscheanism.

The practical results were fascism and national socialism in the 20th century, as I have already mentioned.

"Even the 'religion of love' is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder".
[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol 1 chapter 8]

Hitler wanted to make a 'stronger reflection', then.



1.) The jotnar represent (in general) ugliness, chaos, pure chance, lack of discipline, the fracture of physique and mind, a blank etc.

That might be one interpretation - where have I gainsaid such interpretations?


2.) Age has never dictatated Manhood in the Northern Tradition...

While I'm not sure I would agree with such a generalisation, where did I say otherwise?


3.) The children of jotnar are unworthy of manhood...etc ., etc.,

And what is the point of these interpretative common-places?


Call me crazy, but this sounds a lot like...'Nietzscheanism!'

So you have just discovered that it is possible to make a "Nietzschean" interpretation of Norse mythology?

SuuT
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suut http://forums.skadi.net/images/asgard/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=549073#post549073)
You don't understand the psychology or the dynamism of the Northern Tradition.

So you keep repeating; are you working on the theory that if you keep repeating something that it will eventually become true?

No, it just seems to be the only thing that grabs your attention.

Your interpretation of Odin's Rune Song is hardly supported by the text; you have overlarded :D that text somewhat with an incongrous metaphysics.

No. I am trying to help, and you are being willfully argumentative. Your approach to the song is academic to the point of impotence: you are reading it as a pentecostal reads the bible.

Paganism itself continued to evolve even when Christianity was adopted; hence the symbiosis between the two.
The Trinity, for example, is comparable to the frequent triads in the Heathen tradition, mentioned as far back as in Tacitus.

Nietzsche's conceptions of 'Cesare Borgia as Pope', and the 'Christ-souled Roman Caesar', point to the political bias of 'Nietzschean Christianity'.

It is tied up with Nietzsche's ideas about the future Masters of earth.

This entails not working with what is called the institution of 'Christianity' [the established churches etc.,], but with the residue of 'Christianity' which permeates the mass culture and is unavoidably inherited by the Western Civilisation.

Hitherto, the aristocratic ethos has been too self-destructive.
This is why many masses survive from history, while the aristocratic classes which once ruled them do not.
See how Rome lifted its restrictions on race-mixing and gradually opened up citizenship to all her inhabitants.
By these kind of self-imposed horrors the aristocracy destroyed itself.

Nietzsche bemoaned the fact that the exceptional, rare individuals were all too infrequent and easily destroyed.

As Yeats said, 'the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of a passionate intensity'.

The project of the Ubermensch is to make this rare species 'more enduring than bronze'.

Both Caesarism and Christianity are the rocket fuel for that project which is spearheaded by Nietzscheanism.

The practical results were fascism and national socialism in the 20th century, as I have already mentioned.

"Even the 'religion of love' is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder".
[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol 1 chapter 8]

Hitler wanted to make a 'stronger reflection', then.

Look, honestly, I've given up on trying to oppose, or counter, or contradistinct your associations. It's not worth the time. Preach away.

But, where you continue to give these Johnny Englisc academic analysis of Norse texts and mythos that you can't possibly know how to approach because of not wanting, or not being able (I can't know which, really), to read between the lines, I will correct you.

Why...?






Quote:
1.) The jotnar represent (in general) ugliness, chaos, pure chance, lack of discipline, the fracture of physique and mind, a blank etc.

That might be one interpretation - where have I gainsaid such interpretations?


Quote:
2.) Age has never dictatated Manhood in the Northern Tradition...

While I'm not sure I would agree with such a generalisation, where did I say otherwise?


Quote:
3.) The children of jotnar are unworthy of manhood...etc ., etc.,

And what is the point of these interpretative common-places?


Quote:
Call me crazy, but this sounds a lot like...'Nietzscheanism!'

So you have just discovered that it is possible to make a "Nietzschean" interpretation of Norse mythology?

...because you are eschewing that which I was raised from the cradle, that which I have lived, into rhetorical ends wrapped in motive! If I might borrow a coinage of yours for a moment, you have only "spun in the brain" that which I have lived. Taras Bulba is so damned smug with you for this very reason: he beats you--everytime; what do you do?--you stand back up and tell him he is wrong about that which he has lived! and you never see it...

Moreover, you have the pills to tell me, in an equally rhetorical fasion--that I am deluded...


With respect to your last sentance, you are being, again, willfully ignorant (I hope).

The implication of my post is that Nietzsche didn't need to go to the Near East to revalue how the Near Eastern had wrecked his people, let alone splice himself to it as cure: this is the multi-layered irony of Zarathustra.--If we digest the associations I have made, rather than dismissing them without consideration, we miss the opportunity to view how Germanic Nietzsche, as atavism, is.

If we can closer associate the Northern Tradition with the ultimate regressive goals of Nietzsche (and we can) than with qualifying the malaise with the discoverer of the pox--might that not be something to look into, as well?

You might also answer the questions in the post that you have tried to ignore.

Unless, of course, you wish for 'Nietzschean christianity' to remain in the realm of the untenable, abstract, and rhetorical.

Ave.

Arrian
Monday, September 25th, 2006, 11:32 AM
"Altruism (Lat.). From alter = other. A quality opposed to egoism. Actions tending to do good to others, regardless of self." (dict.)

"Instinctively to choose what is harmful for oneself, to feel attracted by 'disinterested' motives, that is virtually the formula of decadence." (Nietzsche)

I am trying to get at the above.

He says altruism is the prudence of the private man and societies in reality are never altruistic towards one another (716). Even altruism is a kind of self-preserving egoism at work. I'm pointing out, there cannot be real affirmative solidarity by inculcating disinterestedness as heroism of sacrifice as Christianity does.
In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic set-up, it makes sense for Christianity to have to teach, treat 'others' the same as yourself. But amongst people of a common stock, the 'other' is Self. Firm solidarity would come from a recognition of this. Every altruism is still what one does for oneself, one's own child, one's own land, one's own leader. He refers to this as "sentimental egoism" somewhere.
You see no differences in trying to get an army to sacrifice their lives for you in the Christian way, in the name of the Lord, as Bush has been doing, and in the NS way as Hitler did? Bush could not have afforded to get a mixed army to die for a mixed set of people without such Christianity driven patriotism (or whatever else bonuses that he offered them!) On the surface, this seems to have worked, but one also hears of cases in the US, Britain, Australia, where some numbers of the army-men (apart from the voices within society itself) disengaged from war - they couldn't see the point. Disinterested motives cannot keep solidarity for long in my opinion. Its better to teach self-value than unegoism even in sacrifice.



I believe that they were won for the aristocracy; as Odin's Rune Song in the Havamal says;

"Now are sung the
High One's (rune) songs,
In the High One's hall,
To the sons of men all-useful,
But useless to the Jotun's sons.
Hail to him who has sung them".
[Havamal 166]

Yes, you are right. Odin inspires people to rise up to receive his sacrifice, and I am in favour of that kind of example he sets.
It could be seen as Nietzsche does, that Christ abrogated sacrifice of Others by offering himself as a perpetual sacrifice for sin (though Nietzsche ultimately interprets that Christ died only for his own sins).
So Christianity can be seen actually as a message against sacrifice, if one wants to. From that perspective, Odinism is far more encouraging.



I would say that - and I am glad you ventilated that.
You are very right; Hitler was the 'Roman Caesar' [National-] with the 'Christ-Soul' [-Socialist].

I think so too.



Fascism/NS is a form of Nietzschean Christianity!
It needn't mention Christ or Nietzsche, but it has those underlying currents.

I see Fascism/NS as a Nietzscheanism, and Nietzscheanism as a type of advanced Machiavellianism - "How can something disagreeable become agreeable?" (889), and if Christianity, Altruism, Humanization, etc. are the needed answers, it teaches the Yes as well as the No.




If we look at the Order of the Teutonic Knights who persecuted pagans in the Baltic at the behest of the popes, we see that they were very much a pagan type of Order.

Are you saying it was the paganism in Christianity that motivated those persecutions against pagans?
The tolerance of Rome vs. the tolerance of Christ?

Nietzsche observes that the latter was in reality exhaustion to the point of non-reaction. Bear anything so long as one doesn't have to act/react.

Do you foresee circumstances in our future that will make us need and value this lesson?
From the point of view of nobles killing off nobles, you are right, and this could be needful. Aryan ecstasy is reached in moments of honour and vengeance, that it even rises above frith.

http://gamall-steinn.org/text/cot-ch1.htm

Even Nietzsche notes that great Aryan superbeasts are prone to impulsive, compulsive nerves, and inherent in them is the need to act and discharge themselves off. Its why even I thought Christianity's non-reactive numbness is a useful delay or container for such explosions.

Shall we say the "calm strength of forbearance" to the strong-willed and the "calm of exhaustion" is needed to be taught to those who are not?




Nietzsche used the image of the long-bow.
Christianity had caused a tremendous tension on the bow-string of European man.
It had stretched it to breaking point, holding the arrow ready to be launched at the very highest of targets.

I thought he said it slackened the bow and the tension.
I see it as a useful negative stimulant.

Arrian
Monday, September 25th, 2006, 11:35 AM
By all means Suut, you are welcome to ask.

If one does not appropriate something, one cannot establish a real pathos of distance thereafter. A proper rank-order can be founded only upon incorporation. Nietzschean Christianity is something like that to me. I have no major objections to this or what Moody's been saying.

Aryans are the inventive race par excellence, and in this context, that means to me,

1) Take Christianity as it is and invent an usefulness for it, or examine if it is necessary, and if so, how and where.

2) De-semtize, incorporate the best Aryan aspects of it, and furnish an useful resource off it. As Evola puts it,

"It is worth repeating that the principal thing is not the rejection of Christianity: it is not a matter of showing the same incomprehension towards it as Christianity itself has shown, and largely continues to show, towards ancient paganism. It would rather be a matter of completing Christianity by means of a higher and an older heritage, eliminating some of its aspects and emphasizing other, more important ones, in which this faith does not necessarily contradict the universal concepts of pre-Christian spirituality."
(Against the Neo-pagans)

I have no rigid preferences between 1) and 2) yet.

More on this from an article at Rosenoire:



"What one discovers through investigation is that Judaism and the subsequent Semitic faiths inherited symbolism from higher, creative cultures. And while stories of the Judaeo-Christian mythos mirror the stories of Tradition, it is in interpreting those stories that the Semites have perverted their meaning so as to create a religious tendency that adheres its followers to a cultural soul alien to that of the original order.


Christ-Odin and Sacrifice

The idea of Messianic redemption in a time after the destruction of the world is not one that is unique to Judaeo-Christianity. As Amber Ravensong tells us in her "The Balder Myth from a Jungian Perspective":

Many have interpreted [the Balder] myth as the hope of mankind, because as long as Balder remains in Hel he will not die in Ragnarok and will come to rule with the other survivors in the new order of the world. … Odin’s plan was for Balder to succeed him after Ragnarok and so he must keep Balder safe in Hel.
For those not familiar with the story, Balder’s mother, Frigga, had extracted a promise from all things not to harm her son - all things except the mistletoe - and Balder invites the other Gods to play a game where they hurl sharpened sticks from various trees at him. Loki puts the mistletoe into the blind god Hodr’s hand and he throws it, ending Balder and sending him to the Norse underworld of Hel.

It is interesting that the instrument of Balder’s destruction would be the mistletoe - a symbol of life among the pre-Christian Northern European peoples (reference my essay "Merry Pagan Christmas", [http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/12/28/24666.html]). As Lewis Spence tells us in his History and Origins of Druidism:

The mistletoe or branch was ... the life of the divine representative. … It was regarded as the semen of life essence ... the glutinous matter that was contained in its berries was though of as the spermatozoa, or impregnatory fluid of the gods.
And thus we see that the instrument of Balder’s death is also the generative power of new life.

So can the Tradition of the redemption of the world through Balder after Ragna Rokkr be compared to the final Messianic redemption of Christ after Armageddon? G. du Purucker, writing in 1938 in the Journal of Theosophy on the "Story of Jesus", states that the Martyrdom of Jesus was in fact a mimicry of the act of sacrifice of Odin. In du Purucker’s words: "The Gospel story is merely an idealized fiction, written by Christian missionaries in imitation of the esoteric mysteries of the Pagans."

Odin himself is said to have written in the Nordic Edda Havamal:

I hung on that windy tree nine whole days and nights, stabbed with a spear, offered to Odin, myself to mine own self given, high on that Tree, of which none hath heard, from what roots it rises to heaven.
In the literal sense the act of crucifixion seems to bear a strong resemblance. Witness the description given in the Bible in the book of John:

They had crucified Jesus … One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear … Jesus said … ‘I am ascending to My Father and Your Father, and to My God and Your God.’
Michael Moynihan argues, though, in an unpublished essay entitled "The Hanged Man versus the Crucified Criminal," that the two acts cannot be compared except in the superficial sense, as:

[T]he specific details of Odin's and Christ's sacrificial ‘deaths’ can be recognized in many respects as nearly diametrically opposite. …
The nature of Odin's self-hanging can be viewed as a reaching, faring forth, or ‘descent’ to another realm (since he describes gazing ‘below,’ presumably this is to Hel, the land of the dead, in order to acquire the knowledge and wisdom of its denizens …While the means employed are painful and unpleasant, his ultimate goal is unquestionably a positive one. By enduring and overcoming his trial, Odin returns to the worlds of gods and men a superior being with newfound illumination and powers. Thus his rite is successful, and it ensures his place as the supreme entity among the gods of the Aesir.
The crucifixion of Jesus is a wholly different type of event …Viewed from a historical/realistic perspective, the crucifixion of Christ is not even a ritual at all, but rather an entirely mundane act …Crossley-Holland asserts that Christ's death is ‘voluntary’ like Odin's, but this is questionable. True, it may be voluntary in the sense that Jesus brings it down upon himself through his actions which are perceived as blasphemous by his fellow Jews … However, this form of ‘voluntary’ death is entirely pacifistic and submissive at root.
But du Purucker, discussing Odin and the tree, sees a similarity there with Christ and the Cross, saying: "The reference … to ‘hanging on a tree’ is most suggestive, because the very phrase was frequently used in the early Christian writings as meaning ‘hanging on the cross.’"

Du Purucker also discusses the Christ’s last words, claiming:

’Eli, ‘Eli, lamah shavahhtani. These words, called the ‘cry on the cross", have been translated into Greek … and this is the English rendering of the Greek translation: ‘My God! My God! Why hast though forsaken me?’ This is a false translation into Greek, although correct in English from the Greek, because these words in the original Hebrew mean "My God! My God! How thou hast glorified me!" For these words are good ancient Hebrew, and the verb shavahh means ‘to glorify’, certainly not ‘to forsake’. Then in the twenty second Psalm of the Old Testament in the first verse, there are the following words in the original: ‘Eli, ‘Eli, lamah ‘azavtani which mean ‘My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?
So one sees at the root of Christianity, just as at the root of Judaism, the appropriation of Aryan symbols by Judaic myths which then reinterpret the symbols and invert their meaning. Balder-Odin and the Wyrd (an Anglo-Saxon concept roughly equivalent to the Tao of the Chinese) becomes the Son-Father and Holy Ghost, and in that transformation loses its heroic characteristics and instead becomes the anti-thesis of the hero - the condemner of "sin".

As Moynihan writes:

[Christ’s] teachings only become unique and imperative in the face of the ‘spiritual extortion’ which results [from the] Christian doctrine [that salvation can only be reached through Christ.] … If, on the other hand, one were to view Christ as a historical or mythical role-model [in the Aryan sense of the idea of God], he would be difficult to emulate, and many of his actions appear downright absurd. His ‘reality’ is so far removed from our indigenous European one as to be practically incomprehensible."
Conclusions
What one sees in Judaeo-Christian myth is imitation and perversion of Aryan and Indo-European Tradition. The ideas that existed before the Jews or Christian got to them are stood on their head in the translation from Aryan to Semitic, and the moral lessons become confused. To the adherent of Judaeo-Christian Semitic values, Aryan heroics become sinful, while the mentalities and traits that tend to destroy society and bring misery in the material world become virtuous.

When viewed from this perspective the "prophetic" nature of the Judaeo-Christian faith is subsumed into the Aryan concept of the destruction of the world through cyclical collapse of Tradition. The Jewish messiah becomes for the Western man what the Fenris Wolf was for Odin - an all-consuming adversary, not a God to be followed. Odin and the Aryan father-god is the Semitic Anti-Christ, because he represents the character of civilization that Semitic nihilism seeks to defile. The Semitic-Messianic victory in the battle of Armageddon is the victory of death over life - his reign is the destruction of earth by fire. The Semitic Messiah’s role is one opposed to that of the Norse Balder, who restores the Golden Age, rather than making permanent the dark one.

And this is not to glorify what the Christians know as "Satan worship", "Lucifer worship" and the like. Each of these are inappropriate for the people of Tradition for such worship implicitly accepts the Semitic valuations of Semitic people as the good and as those outside of Semitism as the evil. One sees in the concept of Satan/Lucifer the alien evil, seeing itself as good, trying to understand the true good, and not a true representation of the pantheon of deities those names subsume.

As Evola puts it:

There are ancient traditions according to which Typhon, a demon opposed to the Gods, was the father of the Hebrews; various Gnostic authors considered the Hebrew God as one of Typhon’s creatures.
And therefore solarity in the Semitic faith must always manifest itself as a Titanic character:

a materialized violent race that no longer recognizes the authority of the spiritual principle … ; this race … attempt[s] to take possession, by surprise and through inferior types of employment, of a body of knowledge that grant[s] control … This represents an upheaval and counterfeit of the privilege of the previous ‘glorious men.’
Perhaps no other words can better define the Judaeo-Christian usurpation of Western society - an imitation that has counterfeited and usurped the glory of the original. Through this understanding, and through understanding exactly how the original Tradition has become perverted through misinterpretation and through time, can the initiated begin to return society to the original faith.

Understanding the nature of the Judaic roots, can we see ahead to a time when the avatar of the Sun God will return to the origin of Peace and re-establish his divine rule over all the nations of Earth? Such a time is told of after the destruction of the earth by fire. Until then, we can only educate ourselves in order to teach these others their error."

http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/aryan.php

Moody
Monday, September 25th, 2006, 04:19 PM
...because you are eschewing that which I was raised from the cradle, that which I have lived, into rhetorical ends wrapped in motive! If I might borrow a coinage of yours for a moment, you have only "spun in the brain" that which I have lived.

You "lived" the Northern Tradition?

Is that before or after you used the nick 'Aaron'?

Very 'northern traditional'.

From where I am standing you began as Aaron and then had a conversion to 'Suut'.

As for Taras Bulba, he began this thread and yet hasn't contributed much to it since, so I reject your references to him [although you are desperate for allies].


The implication of my post is that ... we miss the opportunity to view how Germanic Nietzsche, as atavism, is.

You seem to be continually stating the obvious in a shrill voice as if you are saying something portentous.
Again, since when have I disagreed with Nietzsche's Germanic atavism?


If we can closer associate the Northern Tradition with the ultimate regressive goals of Nietzsche ... might that not be something to look into, as well?

Certainly - start another thread on that subject if you so wish. Taras Bulba started this thread to discuss Nietzschean Christianity, something I have brought much light to, whereas you have only been stubbornly obtuse, quoting chunks of Nietzsche to no effect.


You might also answer the questions in the post that you have tried to ignore.

I will answer any relevant questions; if they are such, please repeat them just as you have continually repeated that I don't understand the tradition you claimed to have 'lived with'.


Unless, of course, you wish for 'Nietzschean christianity' to remain in the realm of the untenable, abstract, and rhetorical.

I would hardly call the concrete examples of fascism that - but then how much sympathy with fascist/national socialist politics do you really have?
Judging by your responses here, you have zero.


1) "Altruism (Lat.). From alter = other. A quality opposed to egoism. Actions tending to do good to others, regardless of self." (dict.)

2) "Instinctively to choose what is harmful for oneself, to feel attracted by 'disinterested' motives, that is virtually the formula of decadence." (Nietzsche)

The difference is clear to see.

In 2) Nietzsche is talking of that altruism which loses its purpose ['disinterested']; it becomes altruism for its own sake.
Whereas the genuine altruism of 1) is done always for the good of others [a mother for her child, a soldier for his race].
The "decadence" resides in the distinction between the two.


Even altruism is a kind of self-preserving egoism at work. I'm pointing out, there cannot be real affirmative solidarity by inculcating disinterestedness as heroism of sacrifice as Christianity does.

Of course - [genuine] altruism is essential to a higher egoism.
Just as Dawkins points out in his 'Selfish Gene' that a creature's seemingly altruistic self-sacrifice is there to propagate the genes [of course, 'egoism' in this case is an anthropomorphism].
The creature though, must be unaware that he is serving a higher egoism.

Likewise, the genuine altruism of those human instruments in a caste system is there to project the higher caste.
As I point out above though, 'disinterestedness' is not a part of this genuine altruism but is the result [or symptom] of its decay.


In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic set-up, it makes sense for Christianity to have to teach, treat 'others' the same as yourself. But amongst people of a common stock, the 'other' is Self. Firm solidarity would come from a recognition of this. Every altruism is still what one does for oneself, one's own child, one's own land, one's own leader. He refers to this as "sentimental egoism" somewhere.

Nietzsche's view is that every aristocratic society is based on slavery and a caste system with an order of rank - this does not entail a "common stock".

The classes who are there to serve are to be imbued with altruistic notions.


Are you saying it was the paganism in Christianity that motivated those persecutions against pagans?

Yes - I got the idea from de Benoist recently ['On Being a Pagan']; he points out how such 'intratribal' conflicts are normal to paganism [ie., the persecutions were a pagan 'atavism', to use the word patented by Suut].


Nietzsche observes that the latter was in reality exhaustion to the point of non-reaction. Bear anything so long as one doesn't have to act/react.

That also sounds like his idea of 'Russian Fatalism'.

SuuT
Monday, September 25th, 2006, 06:44 PM
By all means Suut, you are welcome to ask.

If one does not appropriate something, one cannot establish a real pathos of distance thereafter. A proper rank-order can be founded only upon incorporation. Nietzschean Christianity is something like that to me. I have no major objections to this or what Moody's been saying.

Aryans are the inventive race par excellence, and in this context, that means to me,

1) Take Christianity as it is and invent an usefulness for it, or examine if it is necessary, and if so, how and where.

2) De-semtize, incorporate the best Aryan aspects of it, and furnish an useful resource off it. As Evola puts it,

"It is worth repeating that the principal thing is not the rejection of Christianity: it is not a matter of showing the same incomprehension towards it as Christianity itself has shown, and largely continues to show, towards ancient paganism. It would rather be a matter of completing Christianity by means of a higher and an older heritage, eliminating some of its aspects and emphasizing other, more important ones, in which this faith does not necessarily contradict the universal concepts of pre-Christian spirituality."
(Against the Neo-pagans)

I have no rigid preferences between 1) and 2) yet.

http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/aryan.php

Thank you. And, thank you for your calm.

Nor do I have a rigid preference between 1). and 2.); although I lean (I am almost falling over) toward 1.).

That christianity has its use seems obvious to me. What is not so obvious is:"2) De-semtize, incorporate the best Aryan aspects of it, and furnish an useful resource off it."

Really, don't the excerpts from rosenoire and Evola illustrate, and clearly so, when held up to the light with christianity as it is, a casted shadow of doom on the possibility of the incorporation of Aryan aspects? And, wouldn't it really be an excavation of Aryan aspects, first?--what of it would not crumble to dust the moment we brush away the filth from our unearthing?

Let me put it simply, and in a related way: Even when fasioning a clay pot on the wheel, the artisan can only work with what's there. He has clay, and a certain amount of it. It can be stretched here, bowed there. Moreover, the end aim is a sought symetry--something probable is the end result. The artisan could not have fasioned an 8 foot long representation of a viking longboat with a pound of clay.

And isn't the task of Nietzscheanising christianity exponentially more difficult?

I have alluded to this earlier, many times, metaphorically, indirectly, and particularly, without providing 'answers' (I think that that would be bad manners); I had hoped that it would be understood that this thread, this idea of Nietzschean Christianity, has needed, and will continue to need, an agonist-antagonist: a counter-current, and at times, an undertow (without having to say so). I think that some do understand this need; I think that some don't.

My representation in this manner has been painfully rudimentary; and I am ever more inclined to represent the agonist-antagonist to Moody as he ups the proverbial ante--even though I am often only seemly disagreeing with him. However, my ego is the dog that follows; I will not be defamed by rhetoric or politics--I don't care about these things. I follow my intuition in such matters; and at times, my actions are so actionary that it is only in hind-sight that I am able to decipher what I have done. In this--I am quite certain in hope that I am not alone.

I simply don't think that we can tackle 'religion and spirituality' with the 'en concreto' approach of Philosophy. Not that Philosophy is not a necessary aspect; but that, just as Nietzsche says about Metaphyscians, who bothers with philosophers, except other philosophers?--but it seems we can do no other.

Do 'we', as philosophers and analysts and observers and knowers, have the necessary instinct for religion necessary for this project?

Have we delved into the religiosity or the spirituality of any possible Nietzschean christianity?

(Or, have we dug up the dead and their philosophies, many of which did not work at the practicable level.)

If/when we have done so, have we not identified, and do we not continue to identify antithesis rather than incorporable, mouldable, raw material from the fixed idea of refined contemporary christianity?--rather than the posession of one's own antipodes?

If we understand christianity as all of the things that your excerpts demarcate as Aryan inversions/Semetic revisions and refinements, what else do we have to appropriate to render a rank-order?

There is something...licentious and indecorous about the idea that we can capture a ghost with a net. Am I making sense?


That I know the quality, as well as the quantity, of clay we have to work with, is why I represent the agonist-antagonist here, in this thread. Such a world is my oyster.

SuuT
Monday, September 25th, 2006, 06:55 PM
You "lived" the Northern Tradition?

Is that before or after you used the nick 'Aaron'?

Very 'northern traditional'.



Zitat Moderator Lawless: "In a nut-shell it is necessary that the Antichrist be a Christian."

And also, a "bringer of light".

See Titcomb's classic book: "Aryan Sun Myths".

...have I been understood...?

Moody
Tuesday, September 26th, 2006, 04:42 PM
"The great modern theoretician of the coincidence of opposites is Nicolas of Cusa (1401-1464) ... The coincidence of opposites, he said, is still the least imperfect definition we may give of God. God is the 'non-other' (De non aluid). He is 'above all the opposites', & he combines them together in him ...

"We find here the harmony extolled by the Greeks, which was based on alternation, excelling, & an antagonistic complementarity.
'The opposites find accord, & a beautiful harmony is born from what differs. Everything is born of struggle' (Heraclitus fragment 8) ...

"As a unity of opposites, God necessarily sits beyond good & evil ... 'For Heraclitus all contradictions run into harmony, invisible to the common human eye, yet understandable to one who, like Heraclitus, is related to the cotemplative god' (Nietzsche, PTAG) ..."

['On Being a Pagan', from Chapter 24 ( by A de Benoist)]

Arrian
Tuesday, September 26th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Really, don't the excerpts from rosenoire and Evola illustrate, and clearly so, when held up to the light with christianity as it is, a casted shadow of doom on the possibility of the incorporation of Aryan aspects? And, wouldn't it really be an excavation of Aryan aspects, first?--what of it would not crumble to dust the moment we brush away the filth from our unearthing?

Our inspiration is Nietzsche himself. He attacked judaeo-christianity by creatively revaluing its roots at Zoroastrianism. A creative excavation needn't necessarily be about what Jesus was, but what he could have been and what he could come to be.
Nietzsche had nothing but a prophet's name to start with. Nietzsche's Zarathustra is both a down-goer (religion for the common) and an over-goer (for the elite). For everybody and nobody!
And if Wagner (whom Nietzsche called the labyrinth of modernism) could christianize nordic myths to Nietzsche's agony, a similar clever seducer could equally re-Aryanize christian myths. (Wasn't Zarathustra a seducer?...) Why not? As Zarathustra says, "Blood-related with my enemies, I want withal to see my blood honoured in theirs." And elsewhere, "All that is deep shall ascend to my height!"

Apart from any Machiavellianism, doesn't it become our Morality, to confer Honour on all things 'filthy'? Isn't that, partly at the root of our own creative instincts?
TSZ strikes me as what Nietzschean-Christianity might be like... he imparts hard-truths and warrior-like hard-won truths but with a Christian-like halcyonness...

Look out for this book: http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0820413127


I simply don't think that we can tackle 'religion and spirituality' with the 'en concreto' approach of Philosophy. Not that Philosophy is not a necessary aspect; but that, just as Nietzsche says about Metaphyscians, who bothers with philosophers, except other philosophers?--but it seems we can do no other.
Do 'we', as philosophers and analysts and observers and knowers, have the necessary instinct for religion necessary for this project?

I'd say a Dionysian philosopher would be well-equipped for this.

"One of Woden's well known titles is the God of the Hanged. The hanging sacrifice has indeed ever been associated with him. There is a deep mystery in this. One could say that suspension between Heaven and Earth, undergoing death, is the essence of the human condition. However, though torn between the extremes of our nature, it is possible to reach a state of equilibrium. This rare state may be reached through spiritual practices and mental discipline, but also through crisis and sacrifice. The latter path is that of the shaman. The reward of this dearly won suspended state may be great wisdom and power."
http://home.earthlink.net/~wodensharrow/aboutwoden.html

If one has lived through all extremes, one is bound to of necessity, touch the heart of the matter, the core, the spot of equilibrium, delicious tension!

How did Nietzsche arrive at Zarathustra!

Mahler attempted something like this.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=regmeister+-+horst+mahler&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t400&x=wrt&u=www.deutsches-kolleg.org/hm/texte/judenfrage_e.html&w=regmeister+horst+mahler&d=C9fbSjmtMwfu&icp=1&.intl=us


If we understand christianity as all of the things that your excerpts demarcate as Aryan inversions/Semetic revisions and refinements, what else do we have to appropriate to render a rank-order?

War is the father of all things.

War can and engenders harmony also.

As against to unifying opposites, setting them at the right variance with each other can produce harmony. To do this, it has to be incorporated first. And a right assimilation will of course entail a proper elimination of the unwanted. Know thy stomach. Since I am undecided about 1) or 2), I am unable to speak on this more.

Nietzsche's own model was to observe how the Greeks managed to triumph over the Asiatics. He called it a hard won and brave victory, a continous process of selection and rejection.



There is something...licentious and indecorous about the idea that we can capture a ghost with a net. Am I making sense?

If pearls can come from the decaying of oysters... and Christianity can help rot! - at the least, that is.

Interpretation is a creative act.

"Many a soul one will never discover, unless one first invents it." (Zarathustra)

Taras Bulba
Sunday, December 3rd, 2006, 09:12 PM
I know this is way after the fact, but is there still any interest in furthering this discussion? If so, there are some issues raised here I was meaning to address, but never had a chance to do.

I will say that this discussion moved in directions I never could've expected. :P

Nagelfar
Tuesday, December 26th, 2006, 05:44 AM
I think of this in terms of Nietzsche's re-valuation of values.

I believe Nietzsche perceived the majority of Christians following the Christian morality because they thought if they didn't, they'd "go to hell". They only "do right" because of a reward system which they have been brow-beaten to believe is supernaturally in place. Not to do right as a virtue in & of itself, as to maintain a stable society etcetra or simply for the sake of it.

This was a slave moralism to Nietzsche; it was many nations of people cowed into obedience because the fear that if they did not or did otherwise they wouldn't get into heaven, a place of eternal joy and bliss.

The very facet of having to believe in this one individual, Jesus, and to align themselves with the matrix of the Christian movement, seems to only benefit the momentum of the movement, perserving it and marginalizing the notion of sacrifice; making ones object of thought to be Jesus for any individual is only an abstract focus of thought. Requiring this to be rightuous is the very archetype of coercive and subjective value.

To Nietzsche, there should be no 'objectifying' of good, no line where it is defined, because then, one is coerced in some degree by the thought of what good is. It becomes a value of consequence outside of its own innate value. One doesn't then strive to do good because of some virtuous nature of their persona, but rather, because of the idea that it is 'good'. It has no value until it is stripped of its implications and still acted upon, because the implications themselves are coercive.

Such imperatives as "Jesus is God" or "This action = going to hell" are all coercive in nature. Outside coercion has no intrinsic connection to truly virtuous intent, it is fully reactionary and in no way proactive.

Now, there are two schools of thought which I've heard of within Christianity about the crucifixion of Jesus. One is, he went to his death knowingly because he knew this would make him king over the newly saved in heaven. He did it premeditating a reward, the ultimate reward; taking his place as God. His actions ensured him a consolidation of his being, making his death not selfless. He burst down the gates of hell and took the rightuous with him to heaven to be with him.

There is another view, which a venerable old man & serious Christian once imparted to me, which I had not heard before. Jesus taking the place of the murderer at the cross, made his death essentially a suicide. An affrontry to the hebraic God. He in a sense arranged his own death, and as the 'son of God', redeemed mankind through assuring his own eternal damnation. That's right, this person, a believer in the divinity of Jesus, believed that Jesus was in hell. After all of his 'selfless' life his final act itself followed through the tragedy of his own method of death with the judeo-christian supreme tragedy to any soul, even as their most divine soul, their jewish messiah. Making the symbol of Jesus that much more sacrifical.

That the latter would be a model to life, not subscribing to any rule for the sake of actualizing a real goodness which would be incapable of existing if prescribed and followed. Not to make an object of Jesus and venerate him but to emulate him even in spite of him, in spite of objectifications of thinking through divine laws even if they were really so and believed in. This to me would be a Nietzschean Christianity. I think Nietzsche mentioned something along the lines of Jesus the man having many qualities of his superman, or man-god. Only that the cults of him were steeped in 'slave morality', consisting of those certainly not supermen.

And when I think of religions best molded to suit the creation of this kind of persona, I think of what Tacitus wrote of Germanic religious practices in the years BCE. That entire armies would face off one another, the victorous army would slay all survivors of the defeated, take all valuables, armor, gold, that they had and burn or otherwise destroy them. Then they would destroy all of their own valuables. Then, the entire victorious army would go to the nearest wood and hang themselves, all of them. After the deaths of all their enemies the victors would commit mass suicide. Expecting nothing but an homage to their God, to honour the spirit of the human struggle, to encapsulate this aesthetic for only its own sake. To give it a spiritual quality to where otherwise there is only the mundane needs of materialism and basic instincts. Flying in the face of all that, to make their own higher purpose, out of nothing more than itself, and putting nothing in priority over it.

Oswiu
Tuesday, December 26th, 2006, 06:10 AM
And when I think of religions best molded to suit the creation of this kind of persona, I think of what Tacitus wrote of Germanic religious practices in the years BCE. That entire armies would face off one another, the victorous army would slay all survivors of the defeated, take all valuables, armor, gold, that they had and burn or otherwise destroy them. Then they would destroy all of their own valuables. Then, the entire victorious army would go to the nearest wood and hang themselves, all of them. After the deaths of all their enemies the victors would commit mass suicide. Expecting nothing but an homage to their God, to honour the spirit of the human struggle, to encapsulate this aesthetic for only its own sake. To give it a spiritual quality to where otherwise there is only the mundane needs of materialism and basic instincts. Flying in the face of all that, to make their own higher purpose, out of nothing more than itself, and putting nothing in priority over it.

Here is the Germania;
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html

Kindly point out to me where in the text you find this Drivel.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, December 26th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Nagelfar, I'll have to address some of your arguments later, hopefully tommorrow.

Anyways, here's an article that argues that Nietzschean Christianity is the logic behind much of American foreign policy???

http://www.sens-public.org/article.php3?id_article=326

I doubt the author's major assertion, but it's still make interesting points about the general topic being discussed.

Nagelfar
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 04:06 AM
Here is the Germania;
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
Kindly point out to me where in the text you find this Drivel.

I thought it was Tacitus only not Germania. I know Tacitus for certain recorded the willing human sacrifice to Nerthus. Still, I might be mistaken to the source in this case, though I was nearly sure it was Roman. Possibly Caesar. I do know it was more obscure. I don't think it was Ibn Fahdlan, though he as a source shows us that ceremonial human sacrifice existed, and non-ceremonial suicide by hanging as a willing sacrifice existed. The above also makes sense since it was the valorous defeated who were considered 'the chosen ones' even unto late nordic records. (In the long run, not the short term; sacrifice made to choose favor for the victors was seemingly in fact to stave off their gods 'choice' to another day). That many such times the victors would include their own by availing themselves to their enemies "chosen" state seems only natural.

Oswiu
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 04:27 AM
I thought it was Tacitus only not Germania. I know Tacitus for certain recorded the willing human sacrifice to Nerthus. Still, I might be mistaken to the source in this case, though I was nearly sure it was Roman. Possibly Caesar. I do know it was more obscure. I don't think it was Ibn Fahdlan, though he as a source shows us that ceremonial human sacrifice existed, and non-ceremonial suicide by hanging as a willing sacrifice existed. The above also makes sense since it was the valorous defeated who were considered 'the chosen ones' even unto late nordic records. (In the long run, not the short term; sacrifice made to choose favor for the victors was seemingly in fact to stave off their gods 'choice' to another day). That many such times the victors would include their own by availing themselves to their enemies "chosen" state seems only natural.
Oh come on! An ethnic group that even occasionally engaged in wholesale slaughter and entire army suicide would not get very far, would it? Apply a little common sense.
I've read all of Tacitus that survives, and have never found any such description of a collectively insane ethnos.

Nagelfar
Thursday, December 28th, 2006, 05:12 AM
I'm not going to get anymore off topic than to say this, "armies" in those times were factions of warring tribes, not on anything like a scale of modern cosmopolitan militaries; the Germanics were many times over populated in addition.