How is anyone supposed to not get an anti-semtic message from his views on the "dark haired" folk?

How is anyone supposed to not get an anti-semtic message from his views on the "dark haired" folk?

Other urls found in this thread:

press.princeton.edu/titles/10635.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Please /pol/ stop posting your shill threads

Please provide the quote you wish to discuss.

He says that they created the slave morality but they don’t control the world because a group of people controlling a planet is stupid to think

Who can confirm for us whether modern democracy, the even more modern anarchism, and indeed that preference for the “Commune,” for the most primitive form of society, which all European socialists now share, does not indicate for the most part a monstrous counterattack— and that the ruling and master race, the Aryans, is not being defeated, even physiologically?).

But that doesn't explain an interpretation of the literature where jews are inherently the lowest of the low people, worse than "Aryans".

Where is that quote from?

If you actually read Nietzsche more than once you would know that he was a philosemite who despised Germany and promoted race-mixing with Jews as the best way to improve German culture.

They embody the slave morality. from their slavery in Egypt to their near genocide by the Germans, they think that their weaknesses makes them more virtuous. Aryans are retarded because they think they are the master morality which is bad too

cont. in fact he hated Germany so much he even tried to claim he was Polish

On the Genealogy of Morals

Right so how is anyone supposed to not take an interpretation where Jews are inherently a more lower, manipulative class of people?

Could you tell me what section? I want to read it in context.

First essay section 5, towards the end.

thanks

lol what translation is it? there were multiple authors who were nazis who perverted what he said for the Reich, went out of their way to edit his words to be pro-Nazi

Because they aren’t
You hating Jews puts you in a master mindset, and that in Nietzsche’s eyes is stupid
He basically says don’t focus on their and point fingers at people, just become the ubermensh and stop thinking that you’re being ethnically cleansed

>hasn't read geneology of morals
>wishes to discuss nietszsche

first of all: u r stupid, second: learn to use google u mongoloid, it brings you right to the text in question

Walter Kaufman

That makes a little more sense, thanks.

he's not taking about jews u mong, he's talking about the pre-aryan indigenous inhabitants of europe, basically he's trying to take the results of the aryan diaspora in south asia and use it to find insights about european history, how well this works is up for debate, but the passage in question has nothing to do with jews

How is anyone supposed to not get an anti-/pol/ message from his views on the ressentiment-driven, reactive, cowardly young men who spend all day hiding behind an anonymous persona on an anime forum, cowering in their basements, bitching about the aristocratic rulers who by their own admission control everything?

I read it a long time ago and wanted to go back to my own copy. Fuck you and your lazy brainless attitude. You know where to go.

I use jews to represent a broader idea to be honest. The idea that some races are inherently more uncivilized, poorer, and lacking than others. I realize that passage wasn't specifically about jews, but it allows for the manipulation of his text to support the notion of anti-antisemitism.

exactly, niezsche would fucking despite /pol/ and also he would despite all these philosopher pseud kids on here trying to self-study western philosophy by binge reading every shittily written philosophical treatise produced by western pseuds, birth of tragedy clearly explains why philosophers are shit

>I've seen proof, black on white, that Herr Dr. Förster has not yet severed his connection with the anti-Semitic movement. … Since then I've had difficulty coming up with any of the tenderness and protectiveness I've so long felt toward you. The separation between us is thereby decided in really the most absurd way. Have you grasped nothing of the reason why I am in the world? … Now it has gone so far that I have to defend myself hand and foot against people who confuse me with these anti-Semitic canaille; after my own sister, my former sister, and after Widemann more recently have given the impetus to this most dire of all confusions. After I read the name Zarathustra in the anti-Semitic Correspondence my forbearance came to an end. I am now in a position of emergency defense against your spouse's Party. These accursed anti-Semite deformities shall not sully my ideal!

I understand he wasn't an anti-semite himself, I'm just stating how hard it is to not interpret his works in an anti-Semitic manner.

You may have stated it but didn't provide anything to back it up.

Do you mean despise?

my question wasn't whether he was an anti-semite or not

Don't play dumb.
It would be hard for you not to interpret his work as anti-semitic. Why is that?

If you published what Nietzsche said about Jews today you would be called an Antisemite for sure.

Idiots will be idiots.

Because his language in the text can be interpreted as anti-semitic?

What do you mean?

You sound like a weak-willed fella.

In the Latin word malus [bad] (which I place alongside melas [black]) the common man could be designated as the dark-coloured, above all as the dark-haired ("hic niger est" [this man is black]), as the pre-Aryan inhabitant of Italian soil, who stood out from those who became dominant, the blonds, that is, the conquering race of Aryans, most clearly through this colour. At any rate, the Gaelic race offers me an exactly corresponding example. The word fin (for example, in the name Fin-Gal), the term designating nobility and finally the good, noble, and pure, originally referred to the blond-headed man in contrast to the dusky, dark-haired original inhabitants.

Text like this can easily be interpreted to be anti-semitic don't you think? Obviously I'm not saying it is, but it easily can be.

Anything can be misinterpreted when taken out of context or in fragments. One shouldn't rush to judgment, no matter how easy it seems.

>I'm not saying it is
you're implying it should be taken as such

I don't think the context is particularly ambiguous here. You have to torture the text rather a lot to get an interpretation that isn't hyper racist.

How do you get an antisemitic message from his work when he equally berates Jews and Aryans?

Agreed. On a surface level reading, it can easily be taken to be quite racially divisive. You have to go into the mindset of his work as saying, he's not an anti-semite. If we didn't know this, his works could easily be misinterpreted.

Not really, I mean if that's how you comprehend my post then that's fine.

Your torture metaphor is quite telling, user.

same

How are you not implying it?

The only people who will take him to be an antisemite are the people who haven't thoroughly read many of his books and who don't have clear minds for his books.

You seem to be projecting the idea that I champion anti-semitism in his work. I'm just trying to understand how it's not an easy way to misinterpret his works. Like I said before, if someone were to read his works without any knowledge of his own belief on anti-semitism, it's quite easy to take his text in the wrong direction.

>it's quite easy to take his text in the wrong direction
for you

I dare you to paraphrase Nietzsche's statements on Jews on a university campus and see just how quickly you get blasted for anitsemitism. The fact that he said he hated antisemites would not protect him from being called the present definition of the word

thanks im a big guy to be honest

lol

Nietzsche is speaking in that long excerpt as a philologist and historian -- not necessarily a strictly unbiased and fact based one, perhaps a bit speculative and poetic. But what he's pointing out is that the very HISTORY of the words we use for good and bad seem to originally have meant noble and ignoble, of a (perceived) inferior race (darker skin, connection of word for bad with word for dark) and superior race (lighter skin). He's clearly not saying he really believes these races are inferior or superior, just that this belief seems to have found its way into the very etymology of words for good and bad! If I remember correctly, this is from the Genealogy of Morals and is paving the way for his distinction between master and slave morality, pointing out his belief that older societies thought more in terms of the former and that Christianity paved the way for the latter. Any idiot could see he's speaking of the beliefs behind the original etymologies, not supporting the beliefs. Although he definitely did, I think, have some colorful ideas on racial character and miscegenation.

Secondly, he hated antisemites because he saw them as all based on ressentiment. Even if (Nietzsche would say) Jews are crafty, conniving, and have undue influence in societies, antisemitism is fostered on the belief, "they're more clever and stronger and superior to us, therefore they are evil! We are more naturally innocent and good and thus better than them!"

A bit dense aren't u m8

N was an anti-Semite he just wasn’t a /pol/ anti-Semite, he didn’t believe Jews stole all of their achievements, he didn’t think they were all bad, he didn’t advocate for total genocide of the Jews, he didn’t champion Aryans annihilating and ruling over enslaved Jews, he merely stated that jews had a subversive influence over european nobility and that the Vikings were a life affirming people. That’s it. there is nothing else he felt, he wasn’t fixated on jews at all like Hitler.

>I dare you to paraphrase Nietzsche's statements on Jews on a university campus and see just how quickly you get blasted for anitsemitism.
What would be the point of this? University campuses aren't filled with any more well-read and clear-minded people than elsewhere. They can say what they want, and they would be just as wrong.

He wasn't an anti-semite. Races had an impact on his ideas, nothing more.

Nietzsche says things as antisemitic as Kevin fucking MacDonald, ie. the biggest antisemitic bogeyman of the past 30 years.

That bit about Jews being the most hateful people who have ever existed? You think he'd get a pass because he also calls them clever?

delusional

>Nietzsche says things as antisemitic as Kevin fucking MacDonald, ie. the biggest antisemitic bogeyman of the past 30 years.
...to the people who are not well read in his works. How many times does this need to be repeated?

>You think he'd get a pass because he also calls them clever?
Who gives a shit if he "gets a pass" or not from retarded students or retards in general?

Your exercise is pointless and aimed at implying Nietzsche's work should be taken as anti-semitic.

>He's clearly not saying he really believes these races are inferior or superior, just that this belief seems to have found its way into the very etymology of words for good and bad!

And he's not wrong, every nation name ever is translatable as 'the good/free people" and strangers "the barbarians/savages/etc". Thing is, saying that while being poetic may imply you're also being judgemental to the non-averted reader. Don't give Nietzsche to read to teens.

>There is one guy on this earth called Kevin McDonald and he's some antisemite conspiracy theorist

>comparing Nietzsche to Kevin MacDonald
I see what you did there

LOL if you guys really think Nietzsche wasn't an anti-semite then I got some snake oil to sell you. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!

Tell us more about what you're selling.

here is some guy, who looks Jewish to me, who has studied Nietzsche intensely, and concluded that he did have anti-Jewish sentiments
press.princeton.edu/titles/10635.html

>As Robert Holub shows, a careful consideration of all the evidence from Nietzsche’s published and unpublished writings and letters reveals that he harbored anti-Jewish prejudices throughout his life.

Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem demonstrates how this is so despite the apparent paradox of the philosopher’s well-documented opposition to the crude political anti-Semitism of the Germany of his day. As Holub explains, Nietzsche’s "anti-anti-Semitism" was motivated more by distaste for vulgar nationalism than by any objection to anti-Jewish prejudice.

Hmm for the record I've finally come to realize that atleast retroactively Nietzsche can be classified as anti-semitic
Given his era it doesn't make a difference

It's an oil that you rub on both nipples and your anus. It turns your hair blonde and your eyes blue. You get to fuck the jew girls in masses. It's some shit.

>Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem
lol

But Nietzsche said Aryans are actually the Gaelic, who, as all experts know, shaped into the word Ginger

You're scamming the proto-Aryans bruh

Nietzsche was Varg of his time but because he could write eloquently manchildren of our time worship him. Sad!

Do you really want to be a ginger? Think about that. Souless fucks.

>and concluded that he did have anti-Jewish sentiments
No one is arguing against that. There's a difference between having anti-Jewish sentiments and being an antisemite, because Nietzsche also has anti-Aryan sentiments, which immediately puts him far away from almost any antisemitic camp out there, and he also holds anti-[insert group here] sentiments about almost everyone, at some point or another. He's never attacking any particular group of people, per se, but the philosophical representation that the groups serve, which is a completely different matter from what the antisemites are on about. And his anti-Jewish sentiments are not more prominent than other anti-group sentiments in his works, and when antisemites started appropriating his works for their purposes, he started injecting more anti-Aryan sentiments into his works as a preventive measure against being erroneously appropriated. That is what he saw the antisemites' work as: erroneous appropriation of his works. He is a free thinker and a philosopher, not an antisemite.

>Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem
Inching further and further away from Nietzsche and closer to your blind ideology I see. No wonder you can never reply to a post without moving the goalposts in some form.

They seem soulless to you because they belong to a superior plane of reality.

>Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem
Dude that is a quote from the page I linked, which you would have seen if you actually went there

>, because Nietzsche also has anti-Aryan sentiments, which immediately puts him far away from almost any antisemitic camp out there,
We just ignoring Muslims now or what

That's Robert C. Holub's words, not Nietzsche's.

>almost any

How about Russians

Fuck off, retard.

Yeah Robert Holub, who Im sure is totally antisemitic and 'blindly ideological'.

check out this other quote from Richard Wolin on that page:
>When the theme of Nietzsche's anti-Semitism arises, moderation and sobriety fall by the wayside, and irrational exuberance, ‘for' or ‘against,' wins out--a situation that helps to explain why most attempts to assess this highly controversial aspect of Nietzsche's legacy have been so sterile and superficial. In Nietzsche's Jewish Problem, the esteemed Germanist Robert Holub breaks free of this vicious circle. He provides a refreshingly fair-minded, meticulous, and judicious reconstruction of Nietzsche's confrontation with the so-called Jewish Question. Holub's book will likely become the standard work on the fraught question of Nietzsche's attitudes toward Jews and Judaism for years to come."

Great argument brainlet. Please explain though how Russian antisemitism is predicated on Aryan ideology

Keep quoting other authors like it means anything, I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of this eventually.

So quotes from Nietzsche are 'out of context' and quotes from contemporary Nietzsche scholars are meaningless, but assertions entirely without evidence from anonymous Veeky Forums posters are the gold standard

I think we're done here

I started reading Holub's essay. It's interesting to note that he always put quotes around the words anti-semitism when linking them to Nietzsche.

>assertions entirely without evidence
What assertions do you think have no evidence?

not such a big guy after all

the best thing to do is to look up anti-semitism on wikipedia. they have different categories and subcategories for every type of injustice ever done to them, in chronological order. then there's a quote from some snide little jew talking about how it's really surprising that people believe they're organ thieves, well, they did steal organs but they didn't do it very jewishly while rubbing their hands so it's still anti-semitism
what's wrong with them? black people can moan about slavery if they feel like it but jews have basically elevated self-pity into a religion. their history literally begins with a lie about how they were slaves in egypt. what are they getting at?

>the best thing to do is to look it up on wikipedia
the absolute state of Veeky Forums

>the absolute state of /pol/
ftfy

>it's quite easy to take out the parts of his text that suit your agenda best and then make broad claims about his whole work based on those selections.
Fixed. But despite the positive things he said about Jews he also said some negative things so he must be a bonafide antisemite to the core, amirite? (not necessarily attacking you, just the retards who fall into this line of thinking)

This is probably the best summary of his view on the Jews. Another important point is that he in some respects praised them and their character, particularly because they produce Spinoza, whom he adored

What exactly do you think antisemitism means? If you have negative opinions about Jews as a group you're an antisemite, according to the Jews themselves.

Once again, Kevin MacDonald wrote 2 books that were positive towards Jews, that were well received by Jews, and then was forever blacklisted as an antisemite for his 3rd book, which was negative towards them.

By your definition we couldn't call him an antisemite either, since he also has nuanced opinions of Jews including positive things.

nobody cares about your pet meme
a good one would not mention /pol/

What are the positive things he wrote?

your posts are absolutely fucking worthless

>all jews are the same person

The fuck is with all the /pol/ threads on N lately? Have they just discovered what books are or something?

lmao

By not starting your philosophical reading with Nietzsche.

An antisemite is hostile towards Jews. Also, there are Jews who praised Nietzsche for the positive things he said.

in his hatred for christianity he gave us the tools to smash judaism aswell.