Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: ietzsche

  1. #11
    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

    Post

    The best book for Nietzsche's ideas on morality is his;
    'The Genealogy of Morality'[GM] - this was intended to expand on certain ideas contained in 'Beyond Good and Evil'[BGE], and has become a classic in its own right.

    The books by Nietzsche that I would recommend from an Aryan perspective are then;

    GM,
    Thus Spake Zarathustra,
    The Antichrist,
    Twilight of the Idols,
    Daybreak,
    The Will to Power.

    The last-named book is an interesting collection of notebooks published posthumously.

    I personally favour the pre-First World War English translations of Nietzsche's works. Later translations try to make Nietzsche into a liberal/existentialist thinker, and therefore distort his work [incidentally it is the early translation of Zarathustra by T.Common that has 'Thus Spake'; the latter ones have 'Thus Spoke' - I prefer T.Common's of course].

    This brings us to the question of interpretation; there are many books ABOUT Nietzsche - most of them are worthless. I would particularly avoid Kaufman's books on Nietzsche (and his translations of Nietsche's works), as he is the main culprit for that 'Nietzsche as a liberal humanist' distortion.

    There are few modern Aryan thinkers who have got to grips with Nietzsche, and I can only think of the latest edition of Michael Walker's magazine 'The Scorpion', which contains some interesting material.

    As a basic introduction to Nietzsche interpretation I would recommend;
    Mencken's 'The Philosophy of F.W.Nietzsche', which is from about 1908, I think.

    As a testimony from someone who actually knew Nietzsche, I would recommend;
    Lou von Salome's 'Nietzsche' [sometimes called 'Nietzsche Through his Works']; this is from the late 19th century.

    The best of all is the following;
    Martin Heidegger's 'Nietzsche' (2 vols). this is from lectures given by Heidegger in the 1930s as a member of the NSDAP.

    Nietzsche's main doctrines are;

    The Superhuman [this can be related to the attempt to create a Higher race].

    The Eternal Recurrence of the Same [this is a Cosmological Total Outlook].

    Amor Fati [- this means 'love as one's fate'; it relates to the courage to face adversity in total].

    The Blond Beast [this is the first civilising Race of Aryans].

    Master Morality vs. Slave Morality [this is the basic moral dichotomy in human culture, relating to a Racial dichotomy].

    The Will to Power [this is Nietzsche's view of the very ground of being - or rather of Becoming].

    Nietzsche is not an ideological thinker, nor is he a systematic thinker. Therefore there is much in his work which may seem contradictory; but this is superficial - Nietzsche is a deep thinker who always thinks both sides of every question.

  2. #12
    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

    Post The Real Nietzsche

    Actually, Nietzsche's influence suddenly erupted in the last years of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s Nietzsche appealed to a wide range of intellectual cultural movements.
    Not just in the West, but in Japan also.

    Those on the 'anarchist left' took him up for his iconoclasm; those in the Eugenics movement saw him as a philosophical champion, while 'right wing' racial nationalists and Imperialists embraced his notions of the Uebermensch (Superhumans, Lords of the Earth), and Rangordnung (Order of Rank).

    Mussolini was a Nietzschean who united the anarchistic trends of Futurism with rightist nationalism; and of course, the German National Socialists saw Nietzsche as one of the spiritual founders of their movement.

    The defeat of the Axis powers meant that the pre-1945 reception of Nietzsche was virtually expunged from memory.
    Jews like Kaufmann worked hard to serve up a 'humanist', and 'existentialist', Nietzsche.
    The only mention of the pre-1945 popularity of Nietzsche amongst radical circles was along the lines of - "the Nazis" supposed 'distortion' of Nietzsche.

    We now realize that the Eugenicist, Fascist, and National Socialist take on Nietzsche was the real one, and that the version of Nietzsche in today's intellectual establishments is the distorted one.
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, March 5th, 2003 at 08:34 PM.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, November 3rd, 2008 @ 11:00 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ger+(Celt/Ita)
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    empirical truth
    Posts
    40
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Nietzsche

    Aside from excerpts, quotes and interpretations, I've never read in full any of his writings.

    Which is what I've come to ask about, which of his books do members of this forum recommend that I read prior to any other? And if possible, any recommendations on the better English translations would too be appreciated.

    Thanks in advanced for any input.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,673
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Nietzsche

    I'd go with Beyond Good and Evil.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Nietzsche

    Human, All too Human. Then BGE, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, then Geneology of Morals. The Antichrist is a good short introduction into the more energetic parts of his philosophy ('happiness is that which increases the feeling of power') but I still recommend Human All too Human. Then Twilight of the Idols. After that... whatever you feel like.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  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

    Post Re: Nietzsche

    You may all want to start with the current Book Study on the 'Modern' subfora of this forum.
    We are going through Nietzsche's Der Antichrist with a fine-tooth comb - it's as good a place as any to start.
    See online links [post #1 in the aforementioned thread for the Antichrist.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #17
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiðinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Exclamation Abraham Killed the Aryan Star:Understanding the Highest Caste

    1.) To what we ‘owe’ Nietzsche: a warning to “…everyone and no one.”


    There is a paradox, should one bother such things, with respect to the degree to which Nietzsche is our creditor. The reason being that there is an essential difference in one speaking of a type of individual; and, the individual being spoken of, regardless of the accuracy, pin-pointedness, and delineative scope of the individual described: from cognition, to description, to categorical recognition, and subsequent placement, in the ‘periodic table’ of man. In short, understanding the essence of a type does not self-include the individual of one who understands the type into the category—after all, and easy enough, Nietzsche understands the slave as well, if not better, than he understands the master. Does he not? It has troubled me for years to know where to place Nietzsche on this table, or how and in what ways I ought to make concessions, if any, regardless of the palpably higher nature of the man, in that so many have not possessed the intuitive rubric to see what ‘it’ is, or who ‘it’ is that Nietzsche has risen from destruction, as it were: the search for even the most menial consensus in matters of distinction is a powerful, obfuscating, all-too-human trait, and one of the last to be shed. This is not to speak of the fact that the tools to escape his “snares” are always a birth-rite; and cannot be borrowed, though many have attempted, and continue to attempt their theft. An example: many an emotional devotee, who via the lack of the proximity of anyone higher, has confused themselves as something else—the only vestiges of the plebeian in the devotee—simply by the fact that Nietzsche appears as an “unmoved mover” when his being is, in the final accounting of the highest of men, fundamentally reflective—if not a reflection; and, the emotional devotees (who, without exception, can know themselves by the furiousness with which they already feel toward me as we exit this first paragraph), themselves, possess modestly more than the power of oratory, susceptibility to ‘belief’, recognition, and possession of supra-conventional eyes for the world (which, incidentally, is forgivable—respectable even—so long as deference is shown to those illuminated by fate, and are recognized as such: modernity, surely, makes this no easy task for the respectable devotee. This difficulty is not their responsibility, making them conditionally absolved—for now).
    That one must “reason” (ratiocinate) what instinct is, even when done-up in the poetic (the only means to bridge the arroyo of the communicable and the incommunicable) is already a slip—a retrogression, of sorts, for Nietzsche, which proceeds from the assumption that cognition of a type is, in fact, ever definitively cognized by the highest of types, which he, and many others, claim to not attribute to the master, and yet his ‘actions’ speak differently. This is a semantic and laughably surreal modern psychological quagmire, to be sure, and, in my experience, the point at which most will be able to gamble no further. The highest man of instinct need never take possession of the knowledge of anything that is already known from his recesses to be his, pre-cognitively. “Thus and thus are mine, etc. and all else follows” is the sub-vocal mantra of every highest man of instinct (sophomorically enough miscalculated in today’s psychological taxonomy as “sociopathic” as it does not fit any Abrahamic mold), arising as vapor from the nadir of his animating energy: it is the membrane that binds a self-antipodal ontology: the coolant that halts the implosion/explosion of an essence that contains antithetical, yet equal, drives: it is the externally reactive choice that is made amongst an internal, and eternally youthful, universe of active, and possessed, possibilities—each of which being, themselves, poly-typical: incipit Arya. The rarity of such individuals, the rarity of ourselves, individuals who are embodiments of the incommunicable; individuals who can describe how to get there yet decline the power of speech as vulgar in the presence of the too awful for words—a fleshy microcosm of the macrocosm—is no argument for our impossibility or non-existence; but is, rather, an argument for our rarity and our controlled chaos: we are not decisive—we are decisiveness. Nietzsche toyed with this, most definitely, not as something basically, pre-cognitively known about his own being, but rather as recognition and resultant admixture to self: “I am no man, I am dynamite” But surely had to ‘talk’ himself into it in an innocent self-flirtation (“…there is an innocence in lying that shows good faith in a cause”) etc. Well, so be it.
    Further more, to place such worry and dramatic import in and on the appearance of a type so irreversibly—spiritually—retrogressed (the “last” man), and to take from this theatre the notion that this appearance is the heralding of the eradication of the/a ‘master race’, and have enough material to produce books is—bothersome; and tends toward the creation of intemperate pigs obsessive to a bizarre degree with the most trivial ideas such as the weightiness of eye and hair color, and the vulnerability to credence in mythological glory that has been robbed of them e.g. Adolph Hitler. Here was a man that became glorified as an exemplar of highness by the emotional devotee, (is, to this day, unaccountably bound to Nietzsche by emotional devotees and academics alike) all the while without realization that they are giving homage to little more than devotion to the highest exemplar of emotional devotion to yet appear; not to the exemplars, let alone the ideal, of the highest of men, which escapes them, thank the gods, unreservedly…Hitler, as it has been said, failed because he was not immortal: How true! What has not been said is that he simply did not know when to stop, and allow his manifestation to finish its development in the hearts and minds of a disordered Arya. A consequence? Look, well…’everywhere.’
    With each suppression from quantity comes an isolation of quality: the reduction of quantity in the higher types, to be sure—but its isolation, contained preponderance, duration as well as strength become ever more vital and exemplary in the appearance of the highest atavistic singularities, as natures fundamental agency with respect to what she divines as balance—irrespective of how humanity (and Nietzsche is part of humanity) has thus far defined, and refined, the idea: the order of rank between man and man has never been more notably, recognizably, or remarkably stratified to the uber-hyperborean: this increases feelings of power and exaltation; ergo, it is good. Nietzsche’s own acumen bares this out all over the place, although he, for whatever raison d'être, missed it: nature has, does, and will continue to departmentalize ever greater power constellations within the highest atavistic singularities, while she simultaneously keeps in check, the (of course, non-pejorative) stagnation of the higher types, as well as the allowance of the spread of the “ineradicable”: counter intuitively to most, nature favors the tyrannical, and moves in the direction of preparedness for such a daunting and redoubtable responsibility: dominion of the few—and then the fewer; and then the one. Upon sufficient scrutiny, one is able to see the abundant utility for us in that which is, in fact, “ineradicable” especially when the “flea beetles” must be told what their essence is to be placated i.e. need to be lied to; moreover, they must be liars: we have no qualms about lying to liars, or, being the reactive aspect within such a dynamism as this is the only way such divergent spirits are tolerably co-existent. …And even more histrionics that makes us question: “…a master race is either on top, or it is destroyed.” What fantastic, fanciful, and reflexively aversive asymmetry is presented before us in Nietzsche’s most negative and apocalyptic argumentative and observational derivatives of the term “strength”! One feels insulted with his most erroneously assumed fragility of that which, and who, masters—over that which is, and who is, strength: one is offended by his lack of ‘faith’: the words “fire” and “brimstone” are only a few degrees of separation from his more thespian, and therefore immediately moving convictions—for which he did have the courage.
    A concubine who bares a noble’s progeny is not looked on positively or negatively by a noble simply for having given birth to the assumed possibility as opposed to the tacit probability of his seed—which may, indeed, lay dormant for generations before its atavistic reappearance regardless of the ‘breeding’ of the female that is, objectively speaking, the vehicle to the means of continuation as it has been implicit. In fact! Its actualized germination may in reality be expedited in certain such cases through the act of the will of that which was passed on, to over-throw the weaker elements of that to which it has been fused: as a non-visible demonstration of the stalwart nature of the master. The master is by no means a perennial, despite the quality of the soil, or how well it is cared for after it breaks free from the ground; there is no reliable ecological structure conducive to his sustenance let alone segregation into an (when looking out and down on the issue) arbitrarily, yet not capriciously, choice elite—which has always had nauseating political effects. Furthermore, how many times throughout history have apparently noble souls combined only to produce (relatively speaking) worthless offspring? Moreover, how many times have more distinguished characters of history not bred at all? The point: nature allows not for the destruction or dilution of the master; only his dormancy and protracted and hibernated gravitas—it’s protracted gathering: the husk from which it comes, from which it springs forth in preparedness is, almost, incidental. The master is not bound by biology, as is the baser, more idiomatic, assumption amongst the higher types in spite of their intuitive aversion to everything colloquial. The master is bound by the apparent caprice of nature, herself: nature favors secretive recessives, but the price we recessives pay is patience—something not always at arms length to us, relative to our own live ideal. A workable, higher minded, eugenics must be, from its inception, a spiritual matter that takes into account the, more often than has previously been noticed, lifting-up-and-out of the master from one biological lineage, as science currently understands such processes, into another—inevitably more spiritually constructed for nature’s experiments: nature gleefully and excitedly plays trait hopscotch in such matters; and, thus far, even the highest of men yet exampled on earth have, at least consciously, misunderstood nature’s riddle with respect to the ‘phenotypic’ expression of the master as being fundamentally imprinted in the necessity of “blood” when blood is, perhaps, exceptional smoke and mirrors. After all, nobles characteristically have concubines. Do they not? This is evidence that nobles have held, and continue to hold, unconscious insight into matters of breeding, and the virility of their own poise in what has been the sheer roll-of-the-dice of breeding the spirit, that runs counter to what it takes to breed a specific type of, let us say, dog—a rigorously biological matter. They misunderstood themselves, and we have misunderstood them, and we have misunderstood ourselves: to put it purely, there was always the causal worry that one might lose—eternally. I cannot passably portray the amusement this notion now gives me. Accordingly, I show deference to the incommunicable—which at this moment should be speaking volumes to those with the ears to hear: for some, you will go nearly deaf.
    Excuse my easily provoked sense of honor; but, yes, Nietzsche, too, must justify himself of his choices, of each and every fork in the road he came to, and went down the more negative observational and interpretive path; Nietzsche, too, if he is to be viewed as a Philosopher-Artist must be divorced from his work and taken much less seriously than it; Nietzsche, too, must live in the world as if he willed the whole piece and play into existence… It is so difficult to disagree with one’s father and tear from him and hold by the throat his own hypocrisies; and yet hubris, contradiction, and temerity were his greatest lessons and gifts to us: it is the imbued responsibility of noble progeny to become one’s own will, even if the patriarch must die so that his sons may bare fruit, as they are closer to the future. Nietzsche was of a higher type. Nietzsche was not, however, an exemplar of the highest, which remain definitively, yet non-pejoratively, static even as we atavistic singularities, we highest of men, continue to draw more to ourselves, continue to take more, continue our ascent from within and without, and continue to become ever more invisible—apparently impossible—as all of the most beautiful things of the world are: rare and rarely seen, if ever found at all—and always, without fail, mistaken by everyone other than ourselves: such is the credit of our instrument.
    Nietzsche is an unbreakable Aryan mirror into which we must frequently gaze lest we mistake ourselves as impossible—which is truer, prima facie, than our preeminent destruction. He never lies in matters of distinction, and there is nothing of him vainglorious: to this, and if only this, he is, paradoxically, owed his pound of our most noblest flesh even though he, himself, is not amongst the most noble, for lacking the patienceof a god in matters of definition and interpretation, when it is begged for by a genuflecting posterity. From looking out and down from atop his honorable shoulders, we drift further upwards, composed of loftiness, potentiality, his language, and he is proud. Proud that laughing lions are come, once again; and have made the time to stop and ruminate with him awhile—in the chamber of the hall of heroes, reserved for the recantation of the proud, and the inevitable melancholy of having been straightforward, yet wide of the mark: “noble enough was he to recant.” Caution: The master was, is, and will remain the one-aeterna veritas. And although the master is existential in very few of us, we possess the combined barbarism of billions; but, the Earth is not yet ripe—but soon my brothers. The sheep now prepare themselves for slaughter. It is but a matter of time before they cut their own throats. The world longs for a spiritual cure: “Ask and ye shall receive.” So be it.

    2.) The prophets were not “prophets.” They were progenitors of ideals that either mistook their own abilities as renegade nobles (spiritual anomalies), or were liars, or both. In the most latter case, we see the embodiment of all emotional timbres fettered, ironically, by reason: the “clever whore” of Luther (which even he, unawares, was all the same in bed with). The Aristotelian-esque reduction to a despotically irrational singularity in the realm of the divine, the proto-recognition of an unmoved mover and this notions logical soundness, provided the only necessary paradoxical intoxicant for such individuals to lay the ground-work for an ideological conquest of thousands of years. Realizing that they were not immortal, they, in effect, made themselves as much through the manipulation of long standing Human emotional commonalities, conventions, and archetypes, as well as confusion itself, by way of the most powerful intoxicant of their immediate untermensch, and subsequently the mass by way of trickle-down morality—words. They were decipherers of code. Words: that tapped and intertwined these most generic, non-specific, valueless Human equivalencies, making the most disparate of groups appear as, in the ‘end’, members of a related singularity: a polytypical “human family”: a species of an equal spiritual hegemony. And still, the world longs for a spiritual cure and mistakes longing as struggle: it senses self-deception; yet is unable to put its finger on it: its pulse is elusive as it lay beyond passivity. The war between “good and evil” is being fought regardless, and nonetheless, of the flawed bifurcation and task to which the world has been set. As Nietzsche reminds us: “what something is called, is far more important than what it is.” Herein lies the essential problem: the protracted immersion in Judaic/Christian/Islamic misery of the mass of individuals (most of which are capable, at the least, of slowing the momentum of self-negation inherent in Abrahamic/monotheistic moral and ethical derivatives to a point of capitulation and resultant intra-belief transmogrification) has drowned the very ability to not only think profoundly—but to feel intensely profound; to live as if something profound has been achieved. If the Abrahamic traditions arose from their antithesis, as a reaction, then the retrogression from this ideal can only extend to the point of its own opposition as a reactive dynamic to that from which it has risen. In short: a direct confrontation with its own contradistinction—its own terrible antipode; a head long stopping short in the face of one’s spiritual progenitor; a confused, subtle and completive paralysis via the hypnotic gaze of one’s own spiritual lineage appears in awareness—on the event horizon of being. Such a literally Earth shattering altercation with one’s own atavism on behalf of the spiritually ill-constituted for such an awareness (“but this…this is no sage?!?!? To whom do I now cling…? I am in fact the son of the Devil!” i.e the bastards of the spiritually aristocratic) inheres amid the birth pangs of one of only two effects: the appearance of some messianic (tyrannical) figure and mass spiritual reformation; or, the domination of the will to war of all against all—the will to death of the existential; and, to drag existence, in concert with the vast prophetic cliché, itself, into the void: the once passive turned active will to actualize the void. This is the soundest conclusion to draw with respect to a type inhering with passivity demanded by a spiritual singularity that cannot ‘be’: omni-passive implosion resulting in a singular, and omnipotent, active will to nothingness. As a species, we are on this precipice: the stumbling at the edge of the void by the passives discovery of the one and only activity of which it is, in the end, capable—nothing. It is here, in the bloomed ideal that is Abraham’s colossal obfuscation, that the great division and reordering; the incredible redressed to be credible, takes place as a means to an expedited end. One no longer seeks difference, or distinction even in matters that are self-consistent within the internal pathology of a divine singularity; and if one does, it is called evil. One only sees that which is similar, equivalent, equal, comparable, parallel, analogous, and seizes such commonalities to the end of insatiably exemplifying the common as divine, the divine as common, as an extension of the singularity that resides “necessarily” in us all... “So long as we all agree to be agreeable unless there are those that disagree,” is the circular and self-negating path of Abraham’s god, with but a singular exit. More to the point, and more practically, the consequences are catastrophically amorphous to the mass, and are made all the more nebulous by their intrinsically redoubtable defenses against the power to perceive beyond “God” made so ipso facto via the moral imprint of millennia, and plebeian routine—the impetus towards a resented labor. The herd has reached its universal green pasture of happiness, but can no longer covet struggle, as it is no where to be found regardless of the abundant babble about it: in fact, they cannot remember ever really struggling: the herd has lost the desire even to feed—and awaits, something. “Do I deserve what has been promised and now lays before me? I can recall no great struggle: I was supposed to struggle—was I not…?” “…Praise God…(?) I see but the devil in me, and it is too much to bare…What is more, I see but the Devil in you…and you, and you , and you, and YOU!!” Omne movre omnes.

    3.) “Jews are, and have been, quicker to recognize that the god of Abraham is no longer a necessity than are Christians or Muslims; and are far more adept at acknowledging that the charade is far too pretentious to continue”: a Jew, of all people, used these exact words at a recent café Philo to describe the quite conscious reality of ubiquitous Jewism. After all, Jewism has conquered: to what end the continuation of the farce? When pressed for opposition, they hear crickets. The people who once so needed a singular god of such an ungodly disposition are now the last to really need one. The irony escapes no one who now needs and feeds all things Dionysian—of whom we are in need. But be not mulish of deference, reliance, to and on such a divinity!—or, his one’s at perpetuities ready…

    For what not, if not now, is the great standard to be replaced: for what not if not whom is the great eradicator; for what not if not time itself is to be absolved in the mirth of Dionysian retribution and calamity! Lo and Behold the dime store imbecility below, as flows from the muddied into the mighty and is yet repelled again, and again, and again! Lively and lengthy still the quiescent arm of the mighty! As barer and witness to all things what went before, seen and unseen, in amusement of what has been but a moment of awe-inspiring recurrence. Inextinguishable!—The flame of the eternity to which we have been gifted and hold as bequest: you are requested: your attendance appreciated: the spectacle of atrophy below beckons and groans. In these most early days of the ancient, the Lion is of greater necessity—than is his priest.





    4.) Noble Asceticism and The Manifestation of Noble Abstractions


    “When evening arrives, I return home and go into my study, and at the threshold, I take off my everyday clothes, full of mud and filth, and put on regal and courtly garments; and decorously dressed anew, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men where, lovingly received by them, I feed myself on the food that is mine alone and for which I was born, where I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them about the reasons for their actions, and they, in their humanity, respond to me. And for four hours at a time, I do not feel any boredom, I forget every difficulty, I do not fear poverty, I am not terrified at death: I transfer myself into them completely.”

    Niccolo Machiavelli


    And so we see here, in perhaps one of the noblest encapsulations ever uttered, what the tools and markers of Noble Asceticism are: reliance on the past as a ‘buoy’ of identity in the flux; reliance on the self; bold inquiry; feeling; forgetfulness; fear; terror; self-transference; and subsequent return to action—to face and use, and understand, how they apply to the active self, once again, and again. These words of our Machiavelli, they self-repeat. In and of themselves, they are but amorphous—passive—terms and phrases. But, when accompanied with the “mud and filth” of action, they delineate, occupy, and govern an entire intellectual sphere. This sphere becomes monadic once entered: the implication is that once in, not only is it impenetrable, but there is also no escape; and is thus our confinement: the father of our pathos: the self-justification of our distance.
    Let us regress further:


    “If I wasn’t Alexander, I’d be Diogenes”

    Alexander the Great


    The acknowledgement, thanks, and appreciation of Noble Asceticism, as virtuous, has had many examples. Alexander was, after all, blocking Diogenes’ Sun: who was Alexander to do such a thing…That Diogenes should be in such contemplation, in such union with a false yet useful dichotomy as “Heaven and Earth” in the presence of such a conqueror, could not go unnoticed by Alexander: he longed for the time for such contemplation; but simultaneously acknowledged that the “conclusions” of Diogenes are exactly what drove Alexander to his apparently antithetical actuality. Alexander had seen one of his “synaptic” twins: this man, sitting in the Sun, was an equal because of the Sun’s greater import than Alexander, the greatest “point of will” of his age. And yet, counter-Alexanders are necessary, for entirely disparate, yet entirely noble reasons…

  8. #18
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiðinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Understanding the Highest Caste: Part 2

    All of the old forms of humanity are depleted. All at once, the same individual is everywhere, appearing as distinct; but all willing 'victims' of the secular hodgepodge that has been sold as progressive. I wonder sometimes, how on Earth could I possibly make an impact on a world that not only denies that I exist, but denies that I ever existed--and "knows" it. What an endless series of of misinterpretation, imposition of overwhelmingly simplistic and proleptic observations by overwhelmingly stupid (i.e. 'good') people! The credo of the masses: "I am an individual!"
    It is not so much that I would have it different, as it is that I would simply prefer to be able to overcome the angst of being a member of an atavistic breed that finds, and has always found itself, endangered. Perhaps this is my last great Humanity hurdle: needing anyone other than myself for any duration. Still alive in me are the remnants of the social animal: do I need to believe, consider even, anything that is contrary to what I intuitively know?
    Perhaps this is the beginning (?). To "know:" what an awkward and encoded proposition this is! The product of a shutting-down, a shutting-off, a defense, an intellectual convenance, a compromise, an absence; but most of all--a tool. Even the best among us must occasionally be caught off guard: perhaps in moments of exhaustion, or passive acceptance, or fatalistic comfort, in the glow of 'answers.' To know 'x': the most obscure of all heuristic principles! But we are connoisseurs of the obscure. At the least, connoisseurs of the glow of answers. Yet, we have somehow aquired the ability to call on this spectre at will; and our repose in its presence is not out of mesmorization, intoxication, a will to simplify, or a desire to assimilate for the sake of 'order.'--We are calmed by the mutual exchange that occurs: we and they are edified: we and they are created: we and they create: we are they: we are the answer.
    All else follows from this intuitive process: our ethics, our morality, our law, our code, our honor, our credo. Our integrity is omniform--to God and his monkeys we leave duality: it never has the worth of an issue.

  9. #19
    Keeps your Whites Whiter.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SuuT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    SkandoNordid/Nordicised Faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic MeritAristocracy
    Religion
    Heiðinn
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Why I Became a Nietzschean: A Lesson in War, Health, and the Highest Caste

    "My practice of war may be summarised in four propositions: First: I attack only causes which are victorious--and at times I wait until they are victorious. Second: I attack only causes against which I cannot expect to find allies, against which I shall stand alone--against which I shall compromise myself alone. I have never taken a step in public that was not compromising: that is my criterion for doing what is right. Third: I never attack persons; I only avail myself of the person as of a strong magnifying glass with which one can render visible a general but creeping calamity which it is otherwise hard to get hold of...Forth: I attack only causes in which any personal difference is out of the question, and in which any background of unwholesome experiences is lacking. On the contrary, to attack is with me a proof of good will, and sometimes of gratitude" (Nietzsche).

    All of my attacks on Christianity are to be viewed through this lens. We are our own salvation--and must wake.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •