Why are so many people unable to follow the underlying cohesion of Nietzsche's philosophy...

Are you fucking serious? I'm reading beyond good and evil right now and he just shat all over idealism for ten pages.
>joos

>he explicitly tells us in his writings that his works contain inconsistencies.
Example?

Yeah, dude, jews. Here's your pat on the back, now learn to ride with your training wheels and you'll get to the big boy interpretations later on.

Nietszche literally loved the Jews.
Beyond Good and Evil, 251:
>But the Jews are without any doubt the strongest, most tenacious, and purest race now living in Europe. They understand how to assert themselves even under the worst conditions (better even than under favourable conditions), as a result of certain virtues which today people might like to stamp as vices - thanks, above all, to a resolute faith which has no need to feel shame when confronted by "modern ideas."

His discussion of ressentiment with the Jews is critique, but not contempt. I believe as in BGAE he says that the intellectual state of Europe would be a sad thing without the Jews, and that the sickly priest with his ressentiment has made history more interesting. We do not need to move back into the pre-ressentiment era, but move beyond it.

Also, a tension with N's relationship with Wagner was the latter's anti-Semitism.

Not really, though this is one of the many contradictions being referred to itt. Regardless, you should be less bombastic until you've read more than just the beginning of one of his works. I'm referring more to the book that came after that anyway, Genealogy.

>big boy interpretations
>all problems are associated with one underlying factor
Yeah, shut the fuck up you pretentious brainlet. You don't get to act all high and mighty because they've figured out the world's problems when actually you've just stupidly reduced the world's problems to literally one issue. Get fucked you moron.

Nietzsche is fun to read but his fans make me fucking hate him. It would be so much better if he was even just a meme like Stirner instead of every edgy highschooler's philosopher. It's ironic because he constantly rails against the kind of people who he is so popular with

Love is a strong word, but he certainly didn't hold them in contempt nor did he think they were irredeemable as a people or without value.

He suggests at one point that the Germans and Jews should mix to create a superior race.

>He did make a lot of important contributions to European thought though, mainly with regard to the need to return to aristocratic idealism and insight into the nature of the jewish problem
der untermensch

Put a new tampon in your boipussy, loser.

Nietzsche lost it/died before the jews turned Germany into the mess they later did. They had been confined to their shtetls until around his time so people didn't have a well-rounded understanding of them yet. As a scholar of history, though, he diagnosed their nature as good as anyone had up until that time.

From Dawn of Day:

>The "life after death."— [...] The Jews, being a people which, like the Greeks, and even in a greater degree than the Greeks, loved and still love life, had not cultivated that idea to any great extent: the thought of final death as the punishment of the sinner, death without resurrection as an extreme menace: this was sufficient to impress these peculiar men, who did not wish to get rid of their bodies, but hoped, with their refined Egypticism, to preserve them forever.

>Amongst all the inhabitants of Europe it is the Jews least of all who try to escape from any deep distress by recourse to drink or to suicide, as other less gifted people are so prone to do. Every Jew can find in the history of his own family and of his ancestors a long record of instances of the greatest coolness and perseverance amid difficulties and dreadful situations, an artful cunning in fighting with misfortune and hazard. And above all it is their bravery under the cloak of wretched submission, their heroic spernere se sperni that surpasses the virtues of all the saints.

>People wished to make them contemptible by treating them contemptibly for nearly twenty centuries, and refusing them access to all honourable positions and dignities, and by pushing them further down into the meaner trades— and under this process indeed they have not become any cleaner. But contemptible? They have never ceased for a moment from believing themselves qualified for the very highest functions, nor have the virtues of the suffering ever ceased to adorn them. Their manner of honouring their parents and children, the rationality of their marriages and marriage customs, distinguishes them amongst all Europeans.

There is a lot more said about the Jews in that one. I think he understood their position fairly well.

And there are plenty of quotes of him haranguing jews, too, so what purpose is there going back and forth other than to highlight the very paradoxes that are the subject of this thread? I already acknowledged that aspect and it has nothing to do with my point, which is that he diagnosed the root of the jewish problem as anyone had at that time. That you're trying to pin down what you think he believed is why I stated initially that your understanding of Nietzsche was novice.

My point is that those aren't contradictions, you are just unable to grasp anything more complex than your own rigid moral framework. Are you really not capable of criticizing something without eliminating all value that you see in it?

Zarathustra says the great despisers are the great adorers. Nietzsche also writes that Jesus of Nazareth's love was born out of the hatred of the Jews, not as a byproduct, but as its ultimate culmination. This is not a contradiction, and Jews then were as much a problem to society as they are today, while also being as much a gift to it.

There are many contradictions, hence why so many people of different persuasions have tried to claim his ideas and have had so many different interpretations of them. He did this intentionally imo, which is why I have no interest in going back and forth, because it's pointless and I've done it before. Just as you can point to quotes of him glowing about jews, so can I of him calling them vengeful and hateful. What I'm pointing out are what I think his most important contributions to European thought: his acknowledgement of the superiority of aristocratic values and his correct diagnosis of how jews corrupted those by spreading the slave morality of Christianity, where we worship the weak instead of the strong. Why? Because that is the foundational problem we face today as well in the post-Christian world jews have further embedded their slave morality into. You won't impress me dropping quotes and pretending you understand these ideas when you show you're incapable of understanding how they have shaped the actual world you live in.

Ah I bet the joos made you say that by turning your mind into degenerate mush.

>I’ve only read BG&E: The Post

Here is nice video about Nietzsche and some guy called Hollywood.
youtube.com/watch?v=ti9zdpLlXf0

>HUR DUUR da joos have thing I dont want them to have thing hur duur
>also fuck muslims jerusalem belongs to israel lol

Because its a National Socialist Ideology.

Least you guys can do is spell the name of your own tribe right. I can't imagine intentionally spelling it wrong convinces many you aren't the deranged, inbred heathens people like myself, and other goyim in growing numbers, know you are.

Oooh, joos made you say that to throw the joos of the trail of the joos. I know you are a joo BTW.

>deranged
>he thinks Germanics are a sane race
hoho

>when he was neither

Paradox = two contradictory sentences true at the same time

Perspectivism = plurality of drives that connect to other things as will to power (so when you're depressed you'll impose this vision upon all other drives keeping them at bay and perhaps even declare the world or life to be worthless, etc.)

Contradicting thoughts = part of the paradoxical nature of thought (that thought gets caught in a plurality of drives, connected and determined by something beyond them).

Basically Nietzsche was justifying contradicting himself by stating that, in the absence of a metaphysical self, this is the norm(adding that a drive can be conditioned to dominate and one or some drives necessarily dominate an individual). Deleuze says that the aphoristic style aims at such drives within us (or rather at such assemblages because they are complex connectiona of space, time, subject, object, image, etc.)

Also, what's a philosopher of becoming if he himself does not change?

People still follow this anti-semite nazi philosophy?

Construct a better strawman before you make a thread next time

>There are many contradictions
Such as?

>Paradox = two contradictory sentences true at the same time

But this is a problem, because there can't truly exist any paradoxes in real life. There is a single flux (and that is not a "thing," but a mode of being) which everything is part of. Nothing truly contradicts.

I place the root of this problem in the interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas, namely, that an incomplete picture of the nature of his perspectivism is being grasped. Misinterpretation in general. And in the case of say the other user who was claiming that he held contradictory views on the Jews, for example, this can be reconciled by achieving the holistically full and proper interpretation of what is essentially a single unified stance he held on them, regardless if he reveals it in fragments in different books (which also appears to be ignored about his work, that he puts forth value judgments depending on the goal at hand, but there is a unified vision connecting it all - will to power, not a multitude of conflicting values but one overarching greater value which encompasses all), which can be summarized by, in my own words:

>The Jews have possessed the greatest hatred of humanity than any other people, and are responsible for the deepest form of slave morality in history, which has pervaded so much of society in an elusive way; and in their deepest hating they created the deepest longing for greatness, a striving for greatness at the sacrifice of humanity, and as such developed one of the most pristine, hard-working, noble cultures to ever exist in history.

See? No contradictions.

The "paradox problem" in Nietzsche can be overcome too by grasping the full picture in a similar manner, which is his will to power.

Nietzsche is at his finest when he rants about women. Human, all too human has some doink memes.

WAS
NOT
A
NIHILIST
(Fuck you)

He played both sides of the same coin, making him a shitpost. I respect him but he was a real asshole about his thoughts. The only thing that Nietzsche talked about that would stick to me was the concept of the ubermensh.

>people didn't have a well-rounded understanding of them yet.
Yes they did, but egalitarian movements pushed those people out of power.

You reap what you sow.

>He played both sides of the same coin, making him a shitpost. I respect him but he was a real asshole about his thoughts.
Er, what?

Can you point some of these people out then?

>he genuinely believes in the jew conspiracy
>he genuinely believes the people mocking him are jewish because they are jewish
I may never get published or accomplish any of the the things I dreamed about as a kid, but as long as I'm not you, and more importantly do not think like you, I'm okay with that.

the only reason Nietzsche might seem less coherent than some other philosophers is just because he didn't have to make up a whole new language to explain his ideas

>I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.

Jews have a word for useful idiots like you: shabbos goyim.

But there was strong anti-semitism in Nietzsche's time.

Inconsistency and paradox are good.

Jews have been hated wherever they've gone because of their behavior; that's normal, not "antisemitism." But plebs disliking jews for monopolizing the liquor trade in town X and pimping out their children is not the same as understanding their psychology and why they do what they do. It was with regard to the latter that Nietzsche was ahead of his time, even though this was something that had been theoretically known since Egyptian times. It was because he was a historical scholar that he was able to update that knowledge and convey it in new terms via the jewish transvaluation of values.

>I place the root of this problem in the interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas, namely, that an incomplete picture of the nature of his perspectivism is being grasped.

Could you elaborate on this? Because Nietzsche explicitly talks about a conflict and play of drives rather than a single continuous flux.

As for reconciling everything he says, you could still do that even if he had made contradictory statements. Having a nuanced opinion tends to lead to that.

Notice how in these quotes Nietchse doesnt even appear to question the validity or desire of a large number of foreign strangers to occupy your homeland. How long has this multiculturalism stuff been going on? Since between Rome?

Jews were never a large population and German unification didn't occur until around the time Nietzsche wrote that, so they weren't considered an existential threat and there was some ambiguity about nationalist ideas. But with that said, and to your latter question, jews have always forced their presence within white empires and they have always done the same thing within them: pretend to be unassuming victims, bribe their way into power, use that power attack the host by causing divisions, promoting internal and external wars, even trying to mongrelize the population as they did in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and to a lesser extent Rome, then scurry away and move onto the next host claiming to be the victim again when people turn on them and force them out. You see this over and over. It's textbook parasitism, and it's a part of how nature works, an aspect of natural variation, but many are blinded by its presence in human form.

>implying jews turned Germany into a mess at some point
>implying all of that wasn't the narrative created by the nazi party in order to create a boogeyman to put them into power
Isn't it lovely when crypto-facists come and start spewing their bullshit?

>dude
>i have never read nietzsche
>lmao
fuck off traditionalist piece of shit, go read more christian bullshit

he hated the merchant jew

Even a cursory understanding jewish actions during the Weimar period negates this uninformed perspective, which is of course replete with outdated jargon like the word "fascist." Got to love how jews and those who defend jews try to make people think these terms are in any way relevant to what's happening today. Propaganda in action.

Since pretty much all documentation about Nietzsche is wrongly interpreted, can someone give me a definitive answer on how Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist but yet the whole concept of it is synonymous with his name ?

How different would history have turned out if every single nation contained less than 0.1 of a foreign population?

If there was a hardcore...unbiased (where difficulties arise) group of national intelligentsia figures, the wise national elders or what have you, that decide how many forign individuals could live in each nation for how long, over the course of centuries and millennia, training some new group of leaders to do the same and/or always discussing the situation openly and honestly democratically with the entire population:

How different do you think history would have been? Would some nations invite 70% foreigners, population and wise elders vote 80% in favor of doing so?

Would some nations invite 2%, 1%, .5%. 0.00001%, 0%?

For how long, hundreads of years, thousands?

And tourism? And industry? And authentic food? And upper competitive hand?

>he doesn't realize that many early fascist leaders like Angelo Oliviero Olivetti and Ettore Ovazza were Jewish
>>>/leftypol/

>We do not need to move back into the pre-ressentiment era, but move beyond it.
what do you mean by this:

'Resentiment: Feeling or sense of anything; the state of being deeply affected by anything'

I think it's a play of the word resentment. Being eternally butthurt for some way that another person or group "wronged" you.

The so called "nihilism" proposed in the works of Schopenhauer dealt with the idea of how there wasn't a trascendental idea of sense, and how we should come to terms with this through stoping our search for said sense and devoting ourselves to the pleasures of life.

Nietzsche, while recognizing that the diagnosis of Schopenhauer was right, was highly opposed to his defeatist approach. He thought that while there's not a definitive or trascendental sense to ones life, it should be you the one responsible of creating that sense, and that the way of doing so was through self-discovery and trial. He saw on the nihilistic approach a patological condition that should be cured, and not the unavoidable destiny of humanity after the "death fo god".

m.sparknotes.com/philosophy/genealogyofmorals/section3.rhtml

small brain: nietzsche was a nihilist
medium brain: nietzsche was NOT a nihilist he hated nihilism
big brain: nietzsche actually was a nihilist

I see. That's grosso modo the idea I had in mind, but I'm glad it's clarified for good now.

Thank you user.

Jews are the Trojan horse. They feigned weakness and mostly kept to their communities, and jewish leaders had bribed the German aristocracy to protect them anyway so when tensions flared up they were at most expelled. But where jews are dangerous is when they gain real power, which is when they invite their arab cousins into the host nation as they did in Spain and are doing now. Their greatest strength is their perceived weakness.

GIANT GOD BRAIN: Nietzsche was a nihilist.

Yes, and Nietzsche referred to jews as a "nation of ressentiment par excellence." Their culture teaches them to harbor an intense hatred of others.

The only nihilistic thing about Nietzsche is his critique on modern religion.

Bodhisattva channeling various streams of cosmic energy through their body: Nietzsche trascended Schopenhauer's nihilism not by denying neither accepting it, but as recognizing on the will to power the underlying energy that moves existence itself. It wasn't about being in a particualr way, but to be.

Why couldnt you seriously try to answer my question/s?

For thousands of years there have been international trade routes, and massive markets, and multi cultural living, thousands of years. And not just jews and nation x. But all through europe and middle east: now respond to my questions:

Some point in time, thousands and thousands of years ago, some nations, some european nations, or all nations, should have said starting now, or from the beginning, 0% foreigners can be in our land for any amount of time.

And then from that rule, over time, starting thousands of years ago, each nation having a body of power, and in some cases, or is being argued all cases, the pure non foreign population should democratically vote to allow how many foreigners spend how much time in their nation:

And you believe Europe nations would have, and should have, chose 0% - 0.0001% of their population being foreigners over the course of thousands of years?

and/or a mix of: Shit was crazy back then, it was ok for the rice, and salt, and rug peddlars to set up shop, and for the browned cheap work force, to live in the land, but at any time, a member, or many members of the pure population, can decide for any reason or no reason at all, to kick all non pure people from their land: it is merely a stipulation of the foreigners social national contract. And the taking of America is ok. Or things were barbarically uncivil then, and we benefited tremendously from them, but right now we point to these uncivil barbaric activities and kick them out, because 50 years ago was so differnet, and now we are starting to live in the true, perfect, ideal world, and the purest thing and truth is a pure bloodeds claim to the land that formed the genetics of his ancestors, and so those people can take the power to kick out non pure bloods, depending on who defines pure. And depending on who the pure blooded americans are. But we are mainly talking about europe anyway, but didnt the savage germans ramsack rome, taint and take their culture: but that happened like thousands of years, not hundreds, and they have gotten their karma. But who decides on the justness of nations world karma, who is the judge and the jury of the nations behaviors and laws.

For thousands of years. people used to sacrifice their children to please the Gods. That doesn't mean we should start doing it again.
The Muslims in Germany don't want to mix with the Locals. It's not the other way around. Different time require different approaches.

You have a very strange style of communication so I obviously didn't understand what you were asking, and still don't. That wasn't how history or consciousness worked, where borders and identity were strictly defined, and there were reasons for this, one being the logistics of mass population movement in general. Try to ask a more clear question if you want an answer from me though, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Read slow, one word at at time

There are like 160 or 182 countries or something.

From the beginning of all of them should each one have had ultimate rule that there should be no foreigner from another country living in their country?

Or only Europe countries should have done this, you are only speaking on them?

European countries should have never let a foreigner in? Or over past 400 years, 1000 or so would have been ok?

Or: countries can allow as many foreigners as possible to enter their country, for any length of time, 20, 70, 100, 500 years over the course of:

But at any time throughout that time: A pureblooded member of the home nation, can rally other pureblooded members of the home nation, to no matter the number differences, kick out all non pure bloods.

What do you think about how America was established: and if the natives have claims and rights to it as being the purer blooded originals?

Your posts are borderline nonsensical. Nation = people. That's the origin of the word: nascent/birth/native, etc. And there were not significant numbers of non-Europeans residing in European nations until recently so it was inconsequential. The issue is that a foreign group, jews, were originally let in, allowed to gain power, and have used that power to let others into our nations, as they've done before. So now those jews need to be removed from power, and the people they let in need to be sent back. It's pretty straight forward. America is no exception, and was explicitly a homeland for whites until this same jewish rise in power, culminating in the 1965 Immigration Act.

history is full of foriegner land invasions, and who really exactly owns a nations land? Who really controls what can and does occur on a nations land? Can an elected official say, should they be allowed to, democratically or otherwise: All members of this ethnicity must leave the nation:

No they cannot say this, because their nation has written laws against this: and who wrote those laws, those in power then? And those in power now can change those laws?

So an elected official, speaking on behalf of himself, or those who elected him, should be allowed to say "all members of this ethnicity must leave the nation", and people can protest and say 'no'.

And then different places in the nation, with different beliefs and views say, 'they can live with us, they don't have to leave the country', so that a nation is many nations in one, many counties make up a country.

>No they cannot say this, because their nation has written laws against this

Laws are written, and can be rewritten, by people. They change and can be changed. And yes, just as laws can and have been made granting foreign people entry into a nation, so can those laws be revoked and those people who were let in removed and sent back to where they belong.

Ok, and lets assume the majority of europeans are brainwashed, and your belief is actually somehow the correct true perfect right honest real accurate decision and perspective:

The only reason people would not go with it because they are brainwashed?

How can it not be explained to them? That their lives will be better if only their ethnicity existed in their homeland? Why dont they believe and understand? Only because they feel bad that others cannot experience the great heights of european culture and society?

Only that, they like different people, and prefer it?

And those people that if possible can sincerely feel that way, are simply different people than you, as a nun might be a different kind of person than an exhibitionist junkie nudist.

So then it becomes: Who owns the nation, who owns the nations land, who has the power: Whoever is in power? This group is in power: Any foreigner can come live here: This group is in power: All foreigners have to go: This group is in power: Any foreigner can come live here: This group is in power: All foreigners have to go: This group is in power: Any foreigner can come live here: This group is in power: All foreigners have to go: This group is in power: Any foreigner can come live here: This group is in power: All foreigners have to go.

Or split the nation in 2: this half will be communist, this half will not. This half will be republican, this half will be democrat. This half of town will be the muslims, this half the jews. This half the irish, this half the italian.

Group gets in power: Only pure blooded people get to live in this nation from now on, end of story, everyone go: Happily ever after? All is right with the world? You cant be happy until europe has 0% foreigners?

I wonder if you realize that with each post you seem to make Jews sound cooler and cooler. I mean, a race of people that has single handledly taken down stealth style every empire from the inside throughout history? These niggas are fucking master conquerors. And what's up with everyone else, are they really that retarded to keep falling for it?

I will

Europe is the land of the European people. But yes, ownership of territory is ultimately decided by who has the power to control and exert authority over it. Europeans have been brainwashed by the jews in charge of their institutions but will continue to wake up as more third world savages are funneled into their nations, at which point, with luck, a new reconquista will begin.

Fortunately the opinions of people who talk like characters in a Fast and Furious movie who for whatever bizarre reason stumble into literature forums from time to time are not held in high regard.

This post honestly nailed it, but the other user will unfortunately never see how.

If we reduce all nations and empires and races to the master and slave game, for abstraction's sake, to get at the core of the situation we are observing, then you can indeed note a cycle, like the seasons: masters appear, take control and make others slaves (Spring); in full bloom, the highest productivity ensues (Summer); limits are reached, borders are laxed, slaves gain power (Fall); the slave revolt ensues, chaos opens up, leaving behind entrails of the past and seeds for the cycle to repeat itself (Winter).

The masters are as much at fault as the slaves. They allow the slaves extra room, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. You can't give slaves an inch, because they will only do one thing with it: abuse it. It is a fatal error they always make. But it is inevitable.

Why is it inevitable? Because masters will hit a limit when kept to themselves. Then they get bored. By nature, they seek more. The only way to transcend those limits is to invite chaos into your life: thus they give the slaves more power and eventually they crumble, because they want to. Because like when playing a game, it gets boring if you are first place, so you move on to play another.

It's fun to invent abstract theories about how things work and all, but that doesn't mean such things are reflected in reality. There had long been a more or less harmonious and natural social order among European societies typically based on the tripartite system. It wasn't until jews, who as Nietzsche explains are the leaders of the slave revolt, were let in that there became major disruptions in that social order. Nietzsche also, in a sentiment I agree with, desired a return to that aristocratic order.

there were things like industrial revolutions and gold rushes where the common folk tried to separate themselves from the pack, and then there became like many many more jobs than jut farming and so now it is a free for all of people attempting to showcase their worthy skills for the most money any where in the world. There is only world capitalism, and truth goes to the highest bidder

Don't act like you're on Nietzsche's side, man. He writes passages like The Night-Song in Zarathustra while you accuse an entire race and them alone of being irredeemable and responsible for everyone's downfall.

Can you faggots talk about any philosopher that isn't N?

Sure, and the European social order was less strict than most historically, offering more freedom for individuals to rise up.

I'm conveying information and encouraging people like yourself to start looking into a subject you presently don't know anything about. But I'm already well aware that you are under the mistaken belief that jews are just like you, and that you are conditioned to reject any notion they're not.

ok well, anyway, there is a difference between social strata strife in a nation and the percentage of citizens over time that are foreigners. People seem to believe there is a real case that should be made, that there are no reasons some nations should have >0 foreigners:

This is said by some random strangers: I know nothing of their ability to lead, their ability to corral, the validity of their thoughts and sentiments, if their motives are right and true

Should everyone leave America if thats what the Native Americans wanted?

If foreigners should move from europe? And non native australians leave the continent?

Just as the natives were conquered there, the native germans have been conquered, if your living in such neighborhoods that would let you believe that, that is.

>start looking into a subject you presently don't know anything about.
I suppose I could spend my free time studying more about how Jews are pulling the strings and changing the course of history. But since I am not a resentful twit, the more I learn about how much power someone else has, the more I tend to feel honored to know them, and if they are truly that powerful, then there is something worth learning from them. Power itself is not even an objection, so why do you seem to treat it as such?

Non-whites cannot be transformed into white people, and many white people are going to learn that the hard way.

No white nation has been conquered, but nothing matters other than will. And the second white people regain their pride and the will to remove jews from power the game is over.

You must come from a line of weak men. But I don't object to people like you remaining in ignorance and passively fading away, breeding out, or failing to re-create yourself because that strengthens the core. It's weak men like yourself who don't get it and don't care in the first place that we can afford to lose.

can someone tell me what the main points of his philosophy are

No.

Most importantly: a) will to power is all that ultimately matters, b) Europe should return to a classic aristocratic value system based on the appreciation of strength, and c) the reason we have abandoned this value system is because jews have inverted our values through Christianity, through the transvaluation of those values, wherein we began to worship weakness instead of strength.

The play of drives, or forces, is not incompatible with the single continuous flux, because the single continuous flux is a level of analysis, the level of becoming, in which things are abstracted to a uniform transitory state.

For Nietzsche, there are different levels of analysis possible of the same thing, but there is just one thing, only one world. In Will to Power, he describes the world as "force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many". He does not talk about a multitude of worlds, but "the world," "a monster of energy, without beginning, without end". In Dawn of Day, he expresses "that there is no really essential difference between waking and dreaming", and that our individuality is made up of many instincts (again, at the same time one and many — different levels of analysis of the same thing), their number, force, flux, reflux, action, counteraction, and laws of their nutrition being unknown to us. As some instincts are fed, others are starved necessarily, and when we are awake, our instincts "merely interpret our nervous irritations and determine their 'causes' in accordance with their requirements". He even puts forth the idea that "all our so-called consciousness is a more or less fantastic commentary of an unknown text, one which is perhaps unknowable but yet felt".

When some people see "contradictions" in his work, they typically do not sense that passage between the "unknowable but yet felt" and the known, or the waking and the dreaming, that he did, or at least that is what I have noticed.

Have you ever even met a Jew? They're usually either sarcastic pissers or pretty hard working nerds. I can't imagine voluntarily going on this crusade of yours on an anonymous board in a thread it barely ties to without some significant disconnection from reality on your part.

great post