Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, December 13th, 2006 @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    56
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt

    Nietzsche is very tedious reading, but he came up with a couple of things that had been absent in philosophy for centuries, even millennia, because of Christian influence. He identified the "will to power" and he exposed "slave morality." For that you have to give him a lot of credit.

    I suggest Nietzsche is read by finding the best quotes from him on the internet. If you're intelligent, that's enough. And actually, modern WN writers have some Nietzschean stuff in their writing, but better explained and combined with other things that we need.

    Myatt has some nice ideas, but there's a danger there, getting too caught up with what's "noble." Eventually you'll start doing what nearly every White leader in the last centuries have done: give away power and territory to non-Whites because it wouldn't be noble to use force. Result: a fourteen-year-old girl is raped to death by Blacks in the Superdome and your media are owned by Jews, so they ignore it. That's where too much focus on what's noble will take you. Focus on survival instead. I say Dr. Pierce and a few others who are like him are the philosophers you need.

  2. #12
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Blutwölfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 04:53 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Skåne and North Frisia
    Country
    Iceland Iceland
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Posts
    4,084
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    13
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    61
    Thanked in
    42 Posts

    Nietzsche and National Socialism

    From Alfred Baeumler, Studien zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte (Berlin: Junker und Duennnhaupt Verlag, 1937), pp. 283-285, 288-294.

    Nietzsche and National Socialism stand on the other side of the traditions of the German bourgeoisie. What does that mean?

    The spiritual forces which have formed the German bourgeoisie in the last several centuries have been Pietism, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism. Pietism was the last truly revolutionary religious movement on Lutheran soil. It led men from a hopeless political reality back into their own selves and gathered them together in small private circles. It was a religious individualism which strengthened the inclination toward concern with self, toward psychological analysis and biographical examination. Every apolitical state-alien tendency necessarily had to find support and nourishment in Pietistic Germany.

    The wholly different individualism of the Enlightenment also worked in this direction. This individualism was not of a religious-sentimental character. It believed in reason, it was rational, but it was "political" only in that it denied the feudal system; it was unable to erect an enduring political system of its own and was capable only of breaking the path for the economic system of capitalism. Man was viewed as a wholly individual entity, cut off from all original orders and relations, a fictitious person responsible only to himself.

    In contrast, Romanticism saw man again in the light of his natural and historical ties. Romanticism opened our eyes to the night, the past, our ancestors, to the mythos and the Volk. The movement that led from Herder to Goerres, to the brothers Grimm, Eichendorff, Arnim, and Savigny, is the only spiritual movement that is still fully alive. It is the only movement with which Nietzsche had to wrestle ....

    When we call National Socialism a world view we mean that not only the bourgeois parties but also their ideologies have been annihilated. Only ill-willed persons could maintain that everything that has been created by the past must now be negated. Rather, we mean that we have entered into a new relationship with our past, that our view has been cleared for what was truly forceful in this past but which had been clouded by bourgeois ideology. In a word, we have discovered new possibilities for understanding the essence of German existence. Precisely in this Nietzsche has preceded us. We hold a view of Romanticism that is different from his. But his most personal and lonely possession, the negation of bourgeois ideology as a whole, has today become the property of a generation.

    The foundations of Christian morality -- religious individualism, a guilty conscience, meekness, concern for the eternal salvation of the soul -- all are absolutely foreign to Nietzsche. He revolts against the concept of repentance: "I do not like this kind of cowardice about one's own action; one should not leave one's own self in the lurch before the assault of unexpected disgrace and vexation. Rather, an extreme pride is in order here. For, finally, what is the use! No deed can be undone by repentance."

    What he means here is not a reduction of responsibility, but rather its intensification. Here speaks the man who knows how much courage, how much pride, is necessary to maintain himself in the face of Fate. Out of his amor fati Nietzsche spoke contemptuously about Christianity with its "perspective of salvation." As a Nordic man he never understood for what purpose he should be "redeemed." The Mediterranean religion of salvation is alien to and far removed from his Nordic attitude. He can understand man only as a warrior against Fate. A mode of thought which sees struggle and work only as a penance appears incomprehensible to him. "Our real life is a false, apostatic, and sinful existence, a penalty existence." Sorrow, battle, work, death, are merely taken as objections to life. "Man as innocent, idle, immortal, happy -- this concept of 'highest desirability' especially must be criticized." Nietzsche turns passionately upon the monastic vita contemplativa, against Augustine's "Sabbath of all Sabbaths." He praises Luther for having made an end of the vita contemplativa. The Nordic melody of strife and labor sounds strong and clear here. The accent with which we pronounce these words today we heard from Nietzsche for the first time.

    We call Nietzsche the philosopher of heroism. But that is only a half-truth if we do not regard him at the same time as the philosopher of activism. He considered himself the world-historical counterpart to Plato. "Works" result not from the desire for display, not from the acknowledgment of "extramundane" values, but from practice, from the ever repeated deed. Nietzsche employs a famous antithesis to make this clear: "First and above all there is the work. And that means training, training, training! The accompanying faith will come by itself -- of that you can be certain." Nietzsche opposes the Christian proscription of the political sphere, of the sphere of action altogether, with the thesis that also overcame the contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism (work and faith): "One has to train oneself not in the strengthening of value feelings, but in action; one has to know how to do something." In this way he re-established the purity of the sphere of action, of the political sphere.

    Nietzsche's "values" have nothing to do with the Beyond, and therefore cannot be petrified into dogma. In ourselves, through us, they rise struggling to the surface; they exist only as long as we make ourselves responsible for them. When Nietzsche warns, "Be true to the Earth!" he reminds us of the idea that is rooted in our strength but does not hope for "realization" in a distant Beyond. It is not enough to point out the "this-worldly" character of Nietzsche's values if one at the same time does not want to refute the notion that values are "realized" by action. Something inferior is always attached to the "realization" of given values whether these values are of a mundane or extramundane character ....

    Nietzsche's Nordic and soldierly valuation opposes that of the Mediterranean world and that of the priests. His critique of religion is a criticism of the priest, and arises from the point of view of the warrior, since Nietzsche demonstrates that even the origin of religion lies in the realm of power. This explains the fateful contradiction in a morality based on the Christian religion. "To secure the rule of moral values, all kinds of unmoral forces and passions have to be enlisted. The development of moral values is the work of unmoral passions and considerations." Morality, therefore, is the creation of unmorality. "How to bring virtue to rule: This treatise deals with the great politics of virtue." It teaches for the first time "that one cannot bring about the reign of virtue by the same means used to establish any kind of rule, least of all through virtue." "One has to be very unmoral to make morality through deeds." Nietzsche replaces the bourgeois moral philosophy with the philosophy of the will to power -- in other words with the philosophy of politics. If in doing so he becomes the apologist for the "unconscious," this "unconscious" is not to be understood in terms of depth pyschology. Here the concern is not with the instinctive and unconscious drives of an individual. Rather, "unconscious" here means "perfect" and "able." And beyond that, "unconscious" also means life as such, the organism, the "great reason" of the body.

    Consciousness is only a tool, a detail in the totality of life. In opposition to the philosophy of the conscious, Nietzsche asserts the aristocracy of nature. But for thousands of years a life-weary morality has opposed the aristocracy of the strong and healthy. Like National Socialism, Nietzsche sees in the state, in society, the "great mandatary of life," responsible for each life's failure to life itself. "The species requires the extinction of the misfits, weaklings, and degenerates: but Christianity as a conserving force appeals especially to them." Here we encounter the basic contradiction: whether one proceeds from a natural life context or from an equality of individual souls before God. Ultimately the ideal of democratic equality rests upon the latter assumption. The former contains the foundations of a new policy. It takes unexcelled boldness to base a state upon the race. A new order of things is the natural consequence. It is this order which Nietzsche undertook to establish in opposition to the existing one.

    In the face of the overpowering strength of the race, what happens to the individual? He returns -- as a single member in a community. The herd instinct is basically altogether different from the instinct of an "aristocratic society," composed of strong, natural men who do not permit their basic instincts to languish in favor of a mediocre average -- men who know how to curb and control their passions instead of weakening or negating them. This again must not be understood from an individualistic point of view. For a long time emotions will have to be kept under "tyrannical" control. This can be done only by one community, one race, one people ....

    If there ever was a truly German expression, it is this: One must have the need to be strong, otherwise one never will be. We Germans know what it means to maintain ourselves against all opposition. We understand the "will to power" -- even if in an altogether different manner than our enemies assume. Even in this connection, Nietzsche has supplied the deepest meaning: "We Germans demand something from ourselves that nobody expected from us -- we want more."

    If today we see German youth on the march under the banner of the swastika, we are reminded of Nietzsche's "untimely meditations" in which this youth was appealed to for the first time. It is our greatest hope that the state today is wide open to our youth. And if today we shout "Heil Hitler!" to this youth, at the same time we are also hailing Nietzsche.


    Source
    Lík börn leika best.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Sv: Re: The Rape of Europe: Young People, Get Out and Emigrate!

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless View Post
    The liberal outlook derived ultimately from Locke on your side, and the Faustian Germanic outlook, derived from thinkers like Nietzsche on mine.
    Both are fundamentally individualistic (Nietzsche being the most radical), and both are Germanic [I see Locke as almost the 'British Nietzsche']. So I fail to see your point here. Both the German and the Anglo-Saxon cultures and traditions of thought are variations on a common Germanic theme. BTW, I didn’t know that Nietzsche is on “your side” here.
    Last edited by Moody; Thursday, November 23rd, 2006 at 04:54 PM. Reason: split off from 'Rape of Europe' thread/added 2nd parentheses at author's request

  4. #14
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Sv: Re: The Rape of Europe: Young People, Get Out and Emigrate!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperboreus View Post
    Both are fundamentally individualistic (Nietzsche being the most radical), and both are Germanic. So I fail to see your point here. Both the German and the Anglo-Saxon cultures and traditions of thought are variations on a common Germanic theme. BTW, I didn’t know that Nietzsche is on “your side” here.
    Both are antipodes to each other.

    Nietzsche wrote "I hate Locke", and also said that he didn't think that the English were a "philosophical race" [cf., BGE]

    He certainly thought there were great differences between the Germans and English in cultural temperament.

    For example;

    Locke's 'individualism' is liberal, egalitarian and democratic.

    Nietzsche's 'individualism' is aristocratic, hierarchical and anti-egalitarian.

    Indeed, Nietzsche's so-called 'individualism' has little in common with the use of the word in England today.

    He believed in a caste system; he believed in the necessity of slavery; he believed in a master race and a select few of higher men or Overhumans.

    As he wrote;

    "My philosophy aims at an Ordering of Rank: not at an individualistic morality".
    [Nietzsche, WP 287]

    Only the Few deserved 'individuality', according to this view of Nietzsche's.

    And yes, Nietzsche was very much the spiritual mentor of National Socialism.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    The Rape of Europe: Young People, Get Out and Emigrate!

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless View Post
    Both are antipodes to each other.
    My statements reflected the view that both English and German culture and traditions of thought are in several respects variations on a common Germanic theme (individualism, for instance). I was not referring to Locke in particular.

    Nietzsche wrote "I hate Locke", and also said that he didn't think that the English were a "philosophical race" [cf., BGE]
    - This is common knowledge. Do you take everything a philosopher says at face value? Nietzsche said a lot of things, quite often contradicting himself.

    And yes, Nietzsche was very much the spiritual mentor of National Socialism.
    - A contradictory, brilliant philosopher like Nietzsche have been a spiritual mentor of a variety of different ideologies and people. Any interpretation of Nietzsche will necessarily be fragmentary.
    Last edited by Moody; Thursday, November 23rd, 2006 at 04:55 PM. Reason: spelling/removed comments at request of author

  6. #16
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    What is Noble?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperboreus View Post
    My statements reflected the view that both English and German culture and traditions of thought are in several respects variations on a common Germanic theme (individualism, for instance). I was not referring to Locke in particular.
    I thought that it fits into the present thread which looks at Nietzsche's aristocratic position, which is where he would greatly differ to Locke.

    That issue can be discussed in the round here, rather than as a side issue.

    Also, the material already posted in the present thread allows others to judge Nietzsche's position in relation to Locke [and not necessarliy Locke "in particular" but the whole liberal tradition which stems from him]. Also, we must remember that the original point of comparison is with another Englishman, Myatt, surely a closer contender for a "British Nietzsche".

    This is common knowledge. Do you take everything a philosopher says at face value? Nietzsche said a lot of things, quite often contradicting himself.
    Nietzsche never deviated from his aristocratic position - ever.

    Of course it is 'common knowledge' that he took up many 'contradictory' positions as a way of "taking sides against himself"; philosophers often do this.

    However there is a core of aristocratic thinking that goes through Nietzsche's work from start to finish.
    In order to see this one has to seek below "face value" - indeed, the view that Nietzsche was merely a relativist is the superficial and 'common' one.

    A contradictory, brilliant philosopher like Nietzsche have been a spiritual mentor of a variety of different ideologies and people. Any interpretation of Nietzsche will necessarily be fragmentary.
    If one approaches him as a relativist, of course.
    But if one observes the core Nietzschean values of Master Morality, and Aristocratic Radicalism, then one realises that the prophet of the Ubermensch and the Will to Power is particularly important for the spiritual aspects of Fascism and National Socialism.
    Last edited by Moody; Thursday, November 23rd, 2006 at 04:59 PM. Reason: altered due to revisions in previous posts
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Sv: What is Noble?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless View Post
    ...indeed, the view that Nietzsche was merely a relativist is the superficial and 'common' one.
    It is undoubtedly a 'common' view in our time, yes. Nietzsche is, actually, claimed to be the first postmodernist relativist.

    But if one observes the core Nietzschean values of Master Morality, and Aristocratic Radicalism, then one realises that the prophet of the Ubermensch and the Will to Power is particularly important for the spiritual aspects of Fascism and National Socialism.
    Nietzsche has undoubtedly been very important in a fascist/National Socialist historical context, but the fascist/National Socialist reading is only one of several possible readings. Nietzsche was not particularly anti-Semitic, for example. He repeatedly expressed a kind of "anti-German-nationalist" point of view.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Sv: What is Noble?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperboreus View Post
    It is undoubtedly a 'common' view in our time, yes. Nietzsche is, actually, claimed to be the first postmodernist relativist.
    He certainly did much to destroy the concept of Absolute Truth. However, this done, he then established his own truth, with a small, 't' of perspectivism, and the world as Will to Power.
    Most postmodern relativists do not make the latter move but rather remain with an aporia.

    Nietzsche has undoubtedly been very important in a fascist/National Socialist historical context, but the fascist/National Socialist reading is only one of several possible readings. Nietzsche was not particularly anti-Semitic, for example. He repeatedly expressed a kind of "anti-German-nationalist" point of view.
    True, but the NS reading is closest to his main and unchanging themes themes of Will to Power, Ubermensch, Masters of the Earth etc.,

    Also Nietzsche opened up a way of thinking of morality which effectively contrasted Semitic Morality [slave morality] with Aryan Morality [master morality].

    So these broad and powerful philosophical themes can be weighed against his remarks on the Jews and Germans which are often tainted by his rejection by his fellow Germans in his own lifetime.
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, November 25th, 2006 at 05:58 PM.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 18th, 2010 @ 01:54 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Vandalic
    Ancestry
    Reidgotalandic
    Location
    Limes Germanicus
    Gender
    Posts
    941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts

    Sv: Re: Sv: What is Noble?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless View Post
    True, but the NS reading is closest to his main and unchanging themes themes of Will to Power, Ubermensch, Masters of the Earth etc.,
    I am not quite sure what you mean by NS (the movement, the leadership, Rosenberg?). Some of the "problem" with Nietzsche is his language, his rhetoric, his aphorisms. He never developed a philosphical system in the traditional sense and he never founded a "school of thought".

    Also Nietzsche opened up a way of thinking of morality which effectively contrasted Semitic Morality [slave morality] with Aryan Morality [master morality].
    Indeed, I believe his Genealogy of Morals has been some of the most influential of his works. But it seems that posterity has yet to pay sufficient attention to his Jenseits von Gut und Böse. There's still too much talk of "evil" and "evildoers".

  10. #20
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Sv: Re: Sv: What is Noble?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperboreus View Post
    I am not quite sure what you mean by NS (the movement, the leadership, Rosenberg?). Some of the "problem" with Nietzsche is his language, his rhetoric, his aphorisms. He never developed a philosphical system in the traditional sense and he never founded a "school of thought".
    Nietzsche and NS have that in common, then: they never developed a "system in the traditional sense", nor did they found a single "school", but a plethora of 'schools'.

    NS inherited this will to fragmentation from Nietzsche.

    The impetus of this will was prior to Nietzsche himself, and was/is due to a counter-movement against the unsurpassed systems of Kant and Hegel in German culture.

    A return to the fragment; to the discrete sword-words of the Presocratics on the one hand, and to coded Runic carvings on the other, are not a "problem".
    They are part of the heritage shared by Nietzsche and NS.

    So by 'NS', I mean it all - in all its unsystematic will to power - as in Nietzsche.

    But certain themes rise to the heights, in NS as in Nietzsche.

    Indeed, I believe his Genealogy of Morals has been some of the most influential of his works. But it seems that posterity has yet to pay sufficient attention to his Jenseits von Gut und Böse. There's still too much talk of "evil" and "evildoers".
    The influence changes with the epoch - once it was Zarathustra, then the Genealogy etc.,
    I am currently looking at Derrida's close reading of BGE in his 'Politics of Friendship', which makes some new departures, but they are too literary for my tastes: the philosophers of the future have yet to come.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. David Myatt and Islam: An Unusual Story
    By rhadley in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, August 6th, 2004, 05:40 AM
  2. Why We Must Return to the Land [Myatt]
    By Taras Bulba in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Friday, January 30th, 2004, 11:46 PM
  3. Honour Creates Beauty [Myatt]
    By rhadley in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Friday, December 26th, 2003, 01:10 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •