Was he the Jordan Peterson of the late 19th century

Was he the Jordan Peterson of the late 19th century

No. He was aware of the Jews and their tricks.

>never read Nietzsche before

He was a nihilist while Jordan Peterson is a con artist

Nietzsche had some original thoughts and analysis while Peterson just parrots totally trite observations and ideas about muh west and muh individuality

STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS GOD DAMN NAZI ON MY FUCKING BOARD REEEEEEEEEE

kek

Is Ben Shapiro Noam Chomsky of the 21st century?

he was probably 100x more intelligent

if he was, then who was his russell brand?

Ok. You've repeated it enough times to give me a chuckle.

Nietzsche had original thoughts

Marxists called Foucault a cryptofascist.
Peterson calls Foucault a marxist.
Fill up the blank.

Is foucault worth the read? I just cannot think how someone could fly a jet and say all they had just been through is an illusion

>Nietzsche
>nihilist
(I'm not a Peterson fan) but I don't think you've read him if that's all you think he talks about
yes but his contemporary disciples are trash. Brainlets shouldn't be allowed to read Foucault

His historical research is a bit wonky, and I can definitely think of more important things to read.
But yes. If only to look at SJWs and say 'I HAVE read Foucault, thank you very much'.

Peterson even qualified Nietzsche's insight of "scary". I think he truly respects the man.

Memes aside, i'm struggling with really understanding Nietzsche. It seems that he often contradicts himself between his works, and while that may be intentonial, it makes it harder to really understand what Nietzsche was getting at. Does anyone have some good secondary literature and commentaries that might help?

>If only to look at SJWs and say 'I HAVE read Foucault, thank you very much'.
this so much

Yes, but don't bother with his retarded disciples.

thus Peterson is a cryptomarxist.

>a bit wonky
that's a bit of an understatement

Oh my god I know, he can’t make up his fucking mind. If I knew where his grave was I’d dig him up and throttle his corpse for being so indecisive

>explicitly defends the jews in genealogy
okay

It's almost as if his thought evolved or something. You probably commit the error of singling out specific passages rather than considering the work as a whole.

Sure, but even then it makes it hard to figure out a whole picture of his works.

Stupid? He was are of the Jews and their tricks but he appreciated them for it