The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it — what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization. These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one's cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.
REQUIRED READING THREAD: Nietzche, Twilight of the Idols
How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples? According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by "tyrants" are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; most beautiful type: Julius Caesar. This is true politically too; one need only go through history. The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong. First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong. Those large hothouses for the strong — for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known — the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has or does not have, something one wants, something one conquers.
Sorry for spelling error anons
Nitezsche was a degerate who died of Syphillis.
Christcuck detected
>twilight of the idols
My fav
Nietzsche was based and a prophet
You can't even read his mumbling nonsense in the original. Burger.
He was promoted by Jews for a reason.
>Nietzsche: babbys first existential crisis.
Grow the fuck up.
>shit that people write from their comfy room, single and sickly.
The warrior is pre-social, gangs form to kill great warriors, tribes-clan-nations either make use of a warrior or destroy him.
TLDR if you think you're a warrior without social context, fuck off, society has bigger things to do than one man can accomplish.
Christcucks out in full force i see
>Baby's first philosopher
(((society))) destroyed the warrior archetype in western culture when it assassinated Patton and dragged MacArthur through the meat grinder that was the press
Nietzche
>proves morality is subjective
>claims ubermensch morality is objectively superior
fucking moron
>be a goddamn genius born in a small town
>get a job in academia because it's better than the shitty, horrible conditions of wagecucking literally anywhere else in your era
>climb to the top of the academic hierarchy, despite hating everything about teaching and dealing with shitty, dull urbanites
>get a pension ASAFP
>in your idle thoughts over the years you recognize the inevitable fall of Christianity
>realize that in that, not only everything in Germanic culture but everything which all of Western society is predicated on is now meaningless
>consider vargpill
>spit it out
>not even LARPing, no gods are the answer to this problem
>will, the old virtues, nature, beauty and an image of man that is perhaps impossible to strive towards is enough for life to have meaning
>come to some of the most creative conclusions humanly possible, far beyond what any contemporary of yours is capable of
>inadvertently fall back on older pagan psychological archetypes
>get basically possessed by Wotan and write a book about it
>call it Zarathustra instead of Wotan cause fuck it, you're strong and independent and don't need no god in your own mind
>basically defeat nihilism on your own terms as a young man and change human events irreversibly
>Give all Western men with an IQ above room temperature some guidance in the face of this new and profound sense of void and meaninglessness in the universe
>swear off marriage because you came to the conclusion that it's not for actual philosophers
>contract shitty new world pathogen from some whore in the process of all this
>no anons where there to warn you and keep you on track
>it slowly eats away your brain
>decades later it finally drives you insane
>you an hero after trying to protect a horse from some asshole beating it and decide to give up due to the pain and madness
>just over a century later, get disregarded by user because you got sick
His earlier stuff was healthier and I'd advise anons who wish to learn from him to stick to that stuff. Zarathrusta is great for personal direction, On the Birth of Tragedy is a great tool for understanding art in an intellectual capacity. He was the only illiberal philosopher until the 20th century and still the most eminent one.
Reminder it's KNEE CHI.
Nietzche was great
moral cuck BTFO
>We do not want to be better than our enemies. They are good, and that is why we hate them. They go to church, pay their taxes, and play well with others. They care about the environment, they oppose intolerance. The problem with do-gooders is that they try to be better than their enemies. So busy being ‘for good things and against bad things’ that they lack vision. Strategy is utterly lost on them.
>Our readers are no doubt familiar with Nietzsche’s critique of morality, but there is little harm in briefly rehearsing the argument. His genealogy of morals goes like this: in the deep mythological past, the strong prevailed. These ‘masters’ of the world glorified themselves, and so they pronounce that which extolled their power to be ‘good’ and denigrated their weaker foes by calling ‘bad’ anything associated with their feebleness. In a stroke of genius, a weaker but far more cunning people toppled their oppressors by inciting a ‘transvaluation of values’ that labeled their own meekness as ‘good’ and denounced the power of their captors as ‘evil.’ While that singular event was genius, the people who came after them stupidly believed this ‘slave morality’ to be more than a clever trick. These fools committed themselves to a pathetic ‘ascetic ideal’ of false modesty whereby the joys of this life are given up in exchange for a richer afterlife.[2]
>Ethics is an impediment to us. For Christians, the reward for leading an ethical life is spiritual. For non-believers, the only compensation is psychological – the knowledge that ‘goodness is its own reward.’ This is the self-righteousness that fuels the principled stances, empty proclamations, and futile deeds that makes one’s life into a million acts of insignificant personal resistance. It is the voice that tells you that dignified defeat is worse than playing dirty. We say: rid yourself of these illusions. The earth does not smile any more on those who refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, call themselves anti-capitalist, or eat organic. We are incensed by anyone who thinks that they can ‘be good,’ ‘do good,’ or even ‘be part of the solution.’
>At the core of ethics is the concept of virtue. We are convinced by those anti-racist theorists who have shown how any concept of virtue is inseparable from a certain notion of whiteness. Hidden within this whiteness is a caesura that splits the good from the bad. We know exactly what good stands in for here – good means nonthreatening.
>Virtuous subjects are afforded the presumption of goodness, while others must fight for it, to justify it, to beat back the skepticism. This is why straightness has no coming out stories, why whiteness claims no common history, and why children simply ‘make mistakes.’ But do not worry!, liberalism says. While some are born with the presumption of good on their side, we are told, everyone has a kernel of evil deep within. Be careful, be prudent, be smart! Each person decides their own fate, the story continues, for everyone is simply a collection of their past choices: their jobs, their friends, their search history. The absurd thing is that liberalism actually believes its own tale. It has charts that plot everyone with a statistician’s accuracy. Innocence is awarded to the best, dangerousness to the worst. People respond to this strategic terrain through a variety of tactics. The two most common are based in the fight for recognition, each taking a side of the grand fissure, both born of a common cause and thus twins, hopelessly dependent on the other. There is the politics of safety, which protects innocence by associating risk with privilege. There is the politics of abjection, which revels in dangerousness only as much as it has already been marginalized (the dumb “existence is resistance” platitude). The dirty little secret is that governments long ago found forms of management that secure virtuous outcomes even with non-virtuous subjects.[4]
Reads like Ratatosk nonsense
That's also pretty much cherry picking and an oversimplifcation
It's a greentext my dude
Just curious, is this opinion of Nietzsche you have common in Germany? I've only met a handful of Germans irl and never before I started reading philosophy.
It's relatively common of those on the new right who read him. The greatest idiots are those who think Nietzsche was a Jew shill. Surprised the Occidental Observed did that, too, and praised Wagner, just because he hated (((them)) and yet became a (((Christian))). But you absolutely cannot base your ideology as a white nationalist or ethno-nationalist on Nietzsche. Same with Stirner. And Steiner who founded the Waldorf schools read both of them in his anarchist circles, where they actually belong. Nietzsche was also contradictory, crazy and a vile criminal whose ideas of the Ancient words differ immensly of what those living in the time actually wrote and thought. Like Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Seneca, Epictet, Epicurus. Much worse than any National Socialist or Communist. And he praised it and rejoiced in it. He is a sick genius. Demonic, highly inspiring, alluring like Satan in all of his glory. But Satanic nonetheless. And I can assure you that Marcus Aurelius, the greatest Roman Emporer who ever lived, would have seen nothing more in Nietzsche than a sick, mad man with dangerous ideas. Not that different from Leo Tolstoj actually. And let's not forget he did larp in egomania as the son of Alexander the Great and descended into actual insanity at the point of Ecce Homo. Nietzsche was the final point of the collapse of German high culture and the hell personified for my nation. He was also anti-German who unironically though he was a Polish noble. Wrongly of course. Crazy as a mad hatter.
bump before I respond, I don't want this thread to die
I think one could only justly characterize Nietzsche as morbid and sick long after his initial works were published. I find nothing of his early works to be these vile and contemptuous creations many consider them to be, although, I do agree that even these early works stand in opposition at least somewhat to the nationalist agendas you and I would favor.
His later work however, even with the lucid and factual observations and conclusions he occasionally presented in them, could be described as madness, morbidity, etc... But I think that the overall summary of Nietzsche should not be relegated to madness, and I think my summary of him, even if it is simplistic or cherry picking is more accurate. Because he showed great courage and capacity in confronting the problem that all other existentialists tired and failed to, he deserves that veneration. Whether it was tertiary syphilis or brain cancer as more recent reports have stated, it is certain that madness took root in him. But his creativity and brilliance should not be disregarded. He was an hero.
>existential crisis
>implying it's a crisis and not true freedom and joy
>And I can assure you that Marcus Aurelius, the greatest Roman Emporer who ever lived, would have seen nothing more in Nietzsche than a sick, mad man with dangerous ideas.
And I can assure you that like most Stoics, Marcus Aurielius's morality was as ultimately corrupted as his understanding of the nature that he coveted so deeply. And that his sense of sanity was as artificial as his love for his chosen son, who was the only true demonic figure in this thread. I love the stoics user, and I don't think Nietzsche at his most sane was in very much of a sort of philosophical opposition to them, in practice. What is so morbid about what is discussed in Zarathustra? All the evidence I've seen points to a man with a great mind who got sick, not a monster. A man who very much cared about his people and his culture and their future before madness began to take root.
Well, you essentially just repeated what you said before with more words. But I find nothing genuinely revolutionary in Nietzsches work. At all. He claimed to be way more of an "edgy rebel" and revolutionary prophet than he actually was. Darwinism, atheism, materialism and social darwinism were already mainstream and on their way to become the dominant ideology. His own life is also the antitehsis to his teachings of course, as with Schopenhauer. Hegel already declared "the death of God" and Nietzsche *contributed* the idea that we cannot create New Gods. Intro Overman. Which became a joke and a reality that is none, an IDEAL no less - turned to a joke, turned to Superman, turned to Thor in spandex, turned another weapon and servitude for the Jew.
I am also not sure which earlier works you are referring to. The main themes are all there already in La Gaya Scienzia and Human All Too Human albeit with a more optimistic tone, but that's just that. Mood. Maybe the Birth of tragedy was systematically different, but that was even before his fallout with Wagner. And there really is no way around the fact that the man who claimed to speak for the true spirit of the Ancient world(tm) against two millennia of Jewish-Christian corruption would be rejected by the greatest actual Roman and Greek minds and real emperors. I also don't think pre-Socratic myths were that great. Just actually do read them. They are underwhelming to put it politely. It's pretty much also sort of a fedora stormfag move to declare Plato and Socrates kikes. lol
And yes, someone who writes that sacrificing 9/10 of humanity for the benefit of the 1/10 would be THE actual progress is evil. Add his insanity to it and you got something demonic.
And there is so much in Nietzsche, you can easily find quotes that fit Coudenhove-Kalergi, that are pro-Jewish, that are for the EU. Then for anarchism like Stirner. Then for Roman Imperialism.
> A man who very much cared about his people
LMAO
Not only did he hate the Germans and trashed them harder than any current year antifa, he also rejected any loyalty to blood, nation or politics.
Also Nietzsches ideas and "will to power" directly go against the very spirit of Platonism, Stoicism, Epicurism, Neo-Platonism. So the culture of almost ALL the entire Roman Republic AND Empire. But yeah man, that's all "kike garbage"! It's all degenerate! You know: the actual Romans who were philosophers, politicans and emperors back then had it all wrong. I know better than them. Really reminds me of how Jow Forums relates to Christianity.
>Hegel
The man with the physiognomy of an innkeeper, how else did Schopenhauer describe him? What was profound about Nietzsche was that he spoke to life user -- that we would not have to become worthless readers. If nothing else his aspirations were more noble, even if he lacked all originality as you seem to be implying.
>I also don't think pre-Socratic myths were that great. Just actually do read them.
I've read some, watched some of the tragedies (in English) and it was intense to me. Developing a sort of Homeric tier hero worship ideal really helped me get through some hard times and stave off depression when I was younger. Most of my friends, especially those who came back from war or who were into drugs are more like zog bots now, full of pharmaceuticals. I understand that it's not for everyone and that I am weird for liking it.
>It's pretty much also sort of a fedora stormfag move to declare Plato and Socrates kikes. lol
/ourguy/ confirmed
>LMAO
I know he did all of this crazy shit as he got older and whatever condition he had progressed. But all I'm saying is to consider that condition (whatever it really was) consider who his "best friends" were after he swore off Wagner, consider that the atomization so many deal with in our era is something that he struggled with all alone and in every waking moment.
>the actual Romans who were philosophers, politicans and emperors back then had it all wrong
I never implied this, and his earlier works (specifically referring to Zarathrusta and earlier works) didn't either. He merely pointed out that these were urbanite ideologies that worship death and submission. Not that they were necessarily wrong. I just have no interest in that or sitting around in some Apollonian circle jerk (aka philosophy).
I won't argue with you user, you seem like a very smart lad and I have nothing against you personally. But Nietzsche was and remains a profound source of knowledge to me.
>Well, you essentially just repeated what you said before with more words. But I find nothing genuinely revolutionary in Nietzsches work. At all. He claimed to be way more of an "edgy rebel" and revolutionary prophet than he actually was. Darwinism, atheism, materialism and social darwinism were already mainstream and on their way to become the dominant ideology. His own life is also the antitehsis to his teachings of course, as with Schopenhauer. Hegel already declared "the death of God" and Nietzsche *contributed* the idea that we cannot create New Gods. Intro Overman. Which became a joke and a reality that is none, an IDEAL no less - turned to a joke, turned to Superman, turned to Thor in spandex, turned another weapon and servitude for the Jew.
This is great stuff btw, I've already said you were smart so I won't do it again that would make it weird haha.