Nietzsche

>Nietzsche had a very bizarre way of being both super-critical of everything, whilst also seeing the good in everything.

Read:

You're repeating the exact same attempts to sanitize Nietzsche's explicit harsh critiques of ideological liberalism, democracy, feminism etc as the various left-wing academics in there engage in.

For example, Solomon and Higgins state that Nietzsche's dislike of democracy:

>His comments are not very different in tone or temper from the routine complaints we hear today (from democrats) about uneducated and ignorant voters who are easily led astray by demagogues, about the irrationality of making delicate and important strategic decisions by majority vote, about the need for leadership and wisdom at the top rather than simply a popular mandate through polls.

But here's what Nietzsche actually wrote about democracy:

>I believe that the great, advancing and unstoppable democratic movement of Europe, that which calls itself ‘progress’ – and equally its preparation and moral augury, Christianity – fundamentally signifi es only the tremendous, instinctive conspiracy of the whole herd against everything that is shepherd, beast of prey, hermit and Caesar, to preserve and elevate
all the weak, the oppressed, the mediocre, the hard-done-by, the halffailed; as a long-drawn-out slave revolt

There has been an attempt, since at least Foucault and Kaufman, to make Nietzsche seem like some adolescent child whose only contribution to philosophy was some sort of proto culture of critique. Nietzsche hated the notion of straddling both sides of the fence, he was obsessed by the pursuit of raw, naked, biological truth, and he explicitly hated egalitarianism, liberalism and feminism and loved hierarchy, order and aristocracy in its classical sense.

Nietzsche was a right wing radical. Deal with it.

Egalitarian is quite easily defined as the moral axiom that making things more equal makes them better.

Nietzsche despised liberalism and would have despied Kaufman, Foucault, Rawls and any number of other ten-a-penny shitlibs regurgitating tired old platitudes about the rights of man.

Stop spinning Nietzsche, he is 100% crystal fucking clear about liberalism and egality.

If you want to play that game then you are completely wrong. Right-wing and left-wing are both liberalism as it referred to the literal left and right side of the French revolutionary assembly.

Depends on how you define "right wing".

Every thread on Veeky Forums boils down to semantic misunderstandings, I miss the time when Wittgenstein was still posted here.

the right was the monarchist faction. The left was the liberal faction.

>Egalitarian is quite easily defined as the moral axiom that making things more equal makes them better.
Than it isn't inherently associated with the left.

>seeing the good in everything

Provide a single passage where Nietzsche sees the good in liberalism and egalitarianism.

Thanks. And then fuck off back to Veeky Forums.

It is exclusively associated with liberalism and enlightenment thought however. The degree to which market liberal embrace it varies, but it's generally perceived to be so widely accepted as to be useful rhetorically to claim you're the ones "truly" in favor of equality, whereas the other side are not.

Nietzsche is not in favor of equality full stop. Per se.

Why would Ben shoot a dog? Blacks hate dog .

>Thanks. And then fuck off back to Veeky Forums.

You'll pay for speaking to me like this homophobe.

>right-wing is anti-egalitarian
That's a very loose concept of right-wing.

Additionally Nietzsche isn't unconditionally interested in preserving hierarchy wherever it may be. He's anti-capitalism, anti-monarchy and anti-nationalism. He's only interested in hierarchy insofar as it can make the existence of great people more likely and protect them from the masses.

>You're repeating the exact same attempts to sanitize Nietzsche's explicit harsh critiques of ideological liberalism, democracy, feminism etc as the various left-wing academics in there engage in.
I'm not. I'm a social-Darwinist, anti-democratic, Hyperborean. If I had my way the western world would be like Iran except with Thus Spake Zarathustra in place of the Quran. Most people would say I'm a fascist but I don't think so.

I just so happen to acknowledge that the right wing with their capitalism, traditionalism and general air of servile instincts are just as much an enemy to higher men as the left are. Mass politics in general is no place for Hyperboreans, as ultimately mass politics is just another tool to unite the herd against anyone that's going to think outside of what they deem acceptable.

And as a testament to this point I've had this exact same argument in reverse with communists before.

>he was obsessed by the pursuit of raw, naked, biological truth
PLEB ALERT
Nietzsche is sceptical of any notion of objective truth.

>It is exclusively associated with liberalism and enlightenment thought however.
So than it isn't associated with traditionalism, therefore the true right.

>the right wing with their capitalism
Spotted the American.

Maybe not literally everything.

>I just so happen to acknowledge that the right wing with their capitalism, traditionalism and general air of servile instincts are just as much an enemy to higher men as the left are

To argue Nietzsche had no interest in perennial tradition is to completely misread him, almost on purpose. You really need to go back and read what he wrote about classical aristocracy, pleb boy.

>Nietzsche is sceptical of any notion of objective truth.

No he was not. Compare what he wrote about God (God is conjectural) when compared to what he wrote about the Ubermensch (the Ubermensch stands in contrast to God because it is REAL, TANGIBLE and BIOLOGICAL and CAN BE MADE through breeding processes).

You are a multiracialist faggot too it seems, if you don't think the left's mass immigration is a danger to the west.

I'm Irish/British actually.

>social-Darwinian
lol, Nietzsche was explicitly anti-social-Darwinist, read Untimely Meditations again

>You really need to go back and read what he wrote about classical aristocracy, pleb boy.
And I think you need to reconsider your definition of "tradition". Because "tradition" doesn't just equate to everything that's old. Not least of all because "classical aristocracy" in Nietzsche's view is deeply at odds with "traditional aristocracy", as in, the elites of contemporary conservative German society.

>No he was not
Do you even Beyond Good and Evil? One of the most basic aspects of Nietzschean philosophy is that there isn't really an objective truth, we only have what our perspectives tell us and that's not entirely reliable but it's the best we've got.

>the Ubermensch stands in contrast to God because it is REAL, TANGIBLE and BIOLOGICAL and CAN BE MADE through breeding processes).
Is this nigga serious?

Go on, find me where Nietzsche said the Ubermensch is going to be made through eugenics. Amuse me.

>You are a multiracialist faggot too it seems, if you don't think the left's mass immigration is a danger to the west.
I'm not. I don't support immigration and I don't know where you got the idea that I do.

However, I do think racism is anti-aristocratic since more often than not it gives white plebeians a pass just for being white.

Nietzsche also didn't really understand Darwinism.

Nietzsche saw Christianity/slave morality as being a necessary step to the Übermensch.

>Because "tradition" doesn't just equate to everything that's old. Not least of all because "classical aristocracy" in Nietzsche's view is deeply at odds with "traditional aristocracy", as in, the elites of contemporary conservative German society.

Now you're just taking criticisms of a decaying aristocracy to mean criticism of the thing itself. Nietzsche is explicitly clear on this matter:

>It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, “the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!”

Anyway:

>However, I do think racism is anti-aristocratic since more often than not it gives white plebeians a pass just for being white.

No it doesn't. Racism merely means "white ethnocentrism", and ethnocentrism is a core and natural part of any healthy group identity.

>Is this nigga serious?

Pic related.

I bet you think Nietzsche believed in some sort of multiracial utopia of ubermensch. How is this any different to the pipe dreams of liberals who think all races are exactly the same neurologically?

Nice try Veeky Forums, no he didn't, unless you're referring to how he believed in overcoming it.

Nietzsche quite literally spoke of reversing the transvaluation of values that the Jews had begun with Christianity, by reversing everything back to what he saw as master/roman morality.

How the fuck can you morons maintain this delusion that Nietzsche had any pertinence to left-wing thought? He isn't yours, he's ours.

>No it doesn't. Racism merely means "white ethnocentrism", and ethnocentrism is a core and natural part of any healthy group identity.
>caring about whatever the fuck the herd does
Slave moralist detected
I'm not a liberal, but Nietzsche saw the good in everything. Nothing is a "mistake" in Nietzsche's view. He wanted to create a NEW morality, not go back to the Roman values. He wanted man to transcend both master and slave morality, and without the necessary step of slave morality we CANNOT do that. Your version of the genealogy is dangerously close to original sin. Amor fati

>caring about whatever the fuck the herd does

Human beings do not exist independently of groups, this is a liberal idea to begin with. It is a fiction rooted in a post-industrial society that allows people to increasingly isolate themselves and fool themselves into believing this isolation is reflective of a real ability of human beings to exist independently of a tribe.

>but Nietzsche saw the good in everything

Again, show me a single sentence where Nietzsche saw the good in egalitarianism, democracy and liberalism. Show me just one.

>I'm not a liberal

Sure you're not.

>He wanted to create a NEW morality

Founded on radical inegalitarianism.

>not go back to the Roman values

Bzzt. Wrong!

>[A] tremendously difficult and decisive task which, when rightly understood, splits the history of mankind into two halves. Its meaning, expressed in four words, is “transvaluation of all values.” When I am done much of what was debatable till now is no longer debatable…Much of this most revolutionary conversion of which the world shall know, is already going on and progressing inside me.

Note here by "transvaluation of values" he is referring to his earlier comments in Genealogy of Morals where he talks about the triumph of Jewish Slave Morality of Roman Master Morality.

Back to Veeky Forums with you champ, you're playing with the big boys now.

>Now you're just taking criticisms of a decaying aristocracy to mean criticism of the thing itself.
I don't think you understand Nietzsche's concept of aristocracy because it definitely doesn't mean "the elites of society" (or at least, the empowered elites anyway). He takes it in the very literal Greek meaning of "the best", which doesn't include the fat descendants of feudal warlords.

>Nietzsche is explicitly clear on this matter:
Did you even read that excerpt? Because it's not a defence of the contemporary status quo. If you're confused by the terminology I advise you read On the Genealogy of Morality because it's entirely about the emergence of slave morality among the Jews under the Roman empire (who's elites Nietzsche strongly approved of).

>Racism merely means "white ethnocentrism",
It doesn't but I understand what you're trying to say anyway.
This is the thing. The vast majority of white people are dirt-kicking plebs, likewise for niggers, likewise for all of humanity. There's only a small few (overwhelmingly white and east Asian) that are actually worth caring about, the rest are basically cattle.

>and ethnocentrism is a core and natural part of any healthy group identity.
>group identity
top herd

>I bet you think Nietzsche believed in some sort of multiracial utopia of ubermensch.
No. Once again you're hallucinating things that no one said.

Let me ask you something though. Are you a nationalist?

>hated nationalism
>hated germans
>hated anti semites
>hated any group or political association

>he's ours

weew

>by reversing everything back to what he saw as master/roman morality
>implying he thought master orality was good

it's called BEYOND good and evil for a reason. read it again.

>Human beings do not exist independently of groups, this is a liberal idea to begin with. It is a fiction rooted in a post-industrial society that allows people to increasingly isolate themselves and fool themselves into believing this isolation is reflective of a real ability of human beings to exist independently of a tribe.
Did you miss all the stuff Nietzsche wrote about how Ubermenschen are above the herd? Socio-politics meant very little to him.
>Again, show me a single sentence where Nietzsche saw the good in egalitarianism, democracy and liberalism. Show me just one.
He saw it as an unfortunate, but necessary, triumph.
>Founded on radical inegalitarianism.
This is only periphery. Why are you especially concerned with race? The morality will be new; Nietzsche didn't tell what it would be.
>Bzzt. Wrong!
Apparently you don't know what "transvaluation" means. He wanted to reconsider ALL values, even Roman ones.

reminder that freddy thought degeneracy was a good thing. poltards btfo:

nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/human-all-too-human/aphorism-224-quote_cbdf4ddfc.html

>I don't think you understand Nietzsche's concept of aristocracy because it definitely doesn't mean "the elites of society"

That's not what I took it to mean, nice strawman senpai.

>which doesn't include the fat descendants of feudal warlords.

Why are you using the term "feudal warlord" as a pejorative here? Nietzsche openly admired the warrior aristocracies of both Medieval Europe and the Classical World, see below:

> Rome found in the Jew the incarnation of the unnatural, as though it were its diametrically opposed monstrosity, and in Rome the Jew was held to be convicted of hatred of the whole human race: and rightly so, in so far as it is right to link the well-being and the future of the human race to the unconditional mastery of the aristocratic values, of the Roman values…The Romans were the strong and aristocratic; a nation stronger and more aristocratic has never existed in the world, has never even been dreamed of…The Jews, conversely, were that priestly nation of resentment par excellence, possessed by a unique genius for popular morals…Which of them has been provisionally victorious, Rome or Judea?…Rome is undoubtedly defeated

>Because it's not a defence of the contemporary status quo.

Jesus could you strawman any harder? Nobody is defending the "status quo" nor implying that Nietzsche did the same.

>It doesn't but I understand what you're trying to say anyway.

In de facto terms it does, and since it has never been meaningfully defined in a sense that doesn't undergo radical redefinition a decade or so later (power plus privilege), let's stick to the de facto definition of "white people displaying the same ethnocentrism other races do".

>There's only a small few (overwhelmingly white and east Asian)

And to what degree do you think East Asians believe in the concept of some transnational aristocratic elite above and beyond that of their own people?

>top herd

Do you believe human beings can exist independent of groups?

what the fuck did you just say about me?

I have never ever heard anyone associate Nietzsche with liberals. Maybe fedoras who can be liberals. But i think you are just basically wrong on this OP

>>hated nationalism

He actually quite liked Pan-European Nationalism.

>Did you miss all the stuff Nietzsche wrote about how Ubermenschen are above the herd?

They lead the group, they do not exist independently of it.

>He saw it as an unfortunate, but necessary, triumph.

No, he saw the decline of Christianity as an unfortunate but necessary part of moving on. As for whether it was a triumph or not - it depends - in an optimistic mood he saw a new kind of radically inegalitarian morality taking hold in its stead, in more pessimistic moods he saw it as the herald of something that Europe could not really deal with in the long run, that would be replaced by something equally weak like liberalism (he seems to have been right in this regard).

>He wanted to reconsider ALL values, even Roman ones.

And hence we arrive at the redefinition of Nietzsche into the tool of a scatological sadomasochistic French Marxist.

You faggots just cannot accept he would have despised everything you stood for, can you?

Imagine you meet some guy from Veeky Forums, he's about 55kgs, maybe 60kgs, he's wearing an ironic christmas jumper and a beard with problem glasses. Imagine he's clasping a copy of "The History of Sexuality" and imagine a brick hits him dead on, straight in the face.

Is anything lost if he suffers brain damage? If people stamp on the wound the brick has inflicted while he's on the ground, does anyone really care, even his disappointed parents?

>He actually quite liked Pan-European Nationalism.
>international nationalism

actually he endorsed the concept of a "good european", i.e. a european cosmopolitanism that had nothing to do with nationalism or nationality.

marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch08.htm

shh no tears only genealogy

>not what I took it to mean
Then there was a miscommunication to begin with because that's what I was talking about in the first place.

>"feudal warlord" as a pejorative here
I'm not, I'm using "fat descendants of feudal warlords" as a pejorative.

>Nobody is defending the "status quo" nor implying that Nietzsche did the same.
Then I advise you read my posts a bit slower because as I said earlier in this post you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. Here's what I wrote that you took objection to

>Because "tradition" doesn't just equate to everything that's old. Not least of all because "classical aristocracy" in Nietzsche's view is deeply at odds with "traditional aristocracy", as in, the elites of contemporary conservative German society.
> the elites of contemporary conservative German society.

>In de facto terms it does,
It doesn't. There are black racists, there are Asian, racists, there are racists of every race. It isn't entirely limited to white people.

>, and since it has never been meaningfully defined
It does have a proper definition. You appear to be mistaking tumblr memes for reality.

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

>And to what degree . . .
I don't. I think very, very few people believe in the concept of transnational aristocratic elite, just as very, very few people are Hyperborean material.

But nonetheless, I would be a fool to not appreciate the artistic, intellectual and martial achievements of East Asian. Whether or not a significant amount of East Asians see things my way is irrelevant, as who limits themselves based on what other people think? A pleb that's who.

>Do you believe human beings can exist independent of groups?
Yes. This is Nietzsche 101, if you can't even begin to try and emancipate yourself from the herd this philosophy is not for you.

Also you didn't answer my question. Are you a nationalist?

>Why are you especially concerned with race?

Because race is a fact of human existence. You can not just theorize its importance on human relations out of existence by pretending it doesn't exist. Even if it doesn't matter to you, it matters to others and by virtue of that, matters to you in turn because it affects your life indirectly.

>Did you miss all the stuff Nietzsche wrote about how Ubermenschen are above the herd?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the sort of liberal individualism you're conceptualizing, it is about an aristocratic group that exists above a group leading it. In his more radical moments it was about the breeding of a new group so superlatively superior to anything that existed presently that it existed as its own group, a new race almost.

Is this some extreme *shniff* display of ideology I'm smelling here?

You still assume I'm a leftist.

Master morality and slave morality are so opposed. Slave morality, while it was weak, was NOT a mistake. As Nietzsche said, amor fati. There is no reason to regret it. Christianity produced beautifully degenerate attitudes, certainly new attitudes, and is the product of a species with a new awareness of itself. To overcome master morality required a kind of strength, as overcoming slave morality will. What else can you call the denial of the basic instincts of life, the reasoning of "goodness from intention"? This needed to happen for the Ubermensch to be born, the Ubermensch longs for a foe equal to himself, and there it is in slave morality.

Don't mistake kindness for weakness

*teleports behind you*
nothing personal kid

He isn't against Christian morality, he is against what is perceived as Christian morality.

His subversion of morality, if completed, would involve taking Christianity from the weak and making it strong.

>no tears

He's not the one who died of AIDS.

>It doesn't. There are black racists, there are Asian, racists, there are racists of every race. It isn't entirely limited to white people.

We both know that 99 times out of a 100 when the term is used, it is applied to whites either contemporarily or historically.

Why is that?

>"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Does that extend to believing that races cannot peaceably live together make one a racist?

>"Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

>as who limits themselves based on what other people think? A pleb that's who.

It's about realizing that this idea of racelessness is entirely white. It is quite literally only white people who take it seriously. Nobody else believes in this notion you have of one race the human race.

>Yes. This is Nietzsche 101

Can you point out where Nietzsche explicitly talks about the notion of an ubermensch existing independently of any racial group?

>Are you a nationalist?

Yes, a pan-European one - quite like Nietzsche. I believe in the unification of the entire white race under a single banner.

How about familially relate my dick in your ass?

>His subversion of morality, if completed, would involve taking Christianity from the weak and making it strong.
This thread is proof that you should need a license to read Nietzsche.

I've read Nietzsche better than you. muh surface-level interpretations i got from my English interpretation!
WE WUZ VIKANGZ N SHEIEET
You din't understand Nietzsche.

So disgusting and AIDS riddled, you know he actually used to go to bath houses and engage in scatological sex?

This is who Veeky Forums worships.

>Slave morality, while it was weak, was NOT a mistake.

This seems completely at odds with what Nietzsche speaks about when he talks about the victory of the Jews over Roman master morality.

>the Ubermensch longs for a foe equal to himself, and there it is in slave morality.

Where does Nietzsche explicitly say that the Ubermensch desires a foe "equal to himself" in slave morality?

Reads like Kaufman's Jewish bullshittery to me. Or Foucault's faggotry.

I think it important to note you dont read a philosopher to adopt all their opinions like dogma. You read them to expand your own thinking.

Back to Veeky Forums you go champ, you can't just quote your favorite bald literal faggot here, it's not your echo chamber.

>WE WUZ VIKANGZ N SHEIEET

What do Vikings have to do with anything? I'm not Scandinavian.

Son, we know you're a straight Fedora-tipper, and we shouldn't even be listening to someone who claimed to be an hyperborean. So stop trying and apply yourself.

Learn to speak English

>Where does Nietzsche explicitly say that the Ubermensch desires a foe "equal to himself" in slave morality?
Did you miss the whole "self-overcoming" thing? The Ubermensch is defined by overcoming slave morality, and he cannot exist without it. By Nietzsche's own fatalism, there is no reason to "regret" past things. We needed it tomove beyond master morality, even if it is painful.

fisting too

I'm asking for a specific quote, here's what you said:

>the Ubermensch longs for a foe equal to himself, and there it is in slave morality.

Explicitly quote Nietzsche saying words to this effect.

>So disgusting and AIDS riddled, you know he actually used to go to bath houses and engage in scatological sex?
The Romans did that too :^)

Is there anything more beautiful than the slow and painful death of a leftist from AIDS?

yeah this pose

>capital offense in the roman army
>"b...but romans were totally for LGBT pride!"

Nice try faggot. Back to /lgbt/ with you.

neitzsche died of an std too you realise

Because, like other wise ideas, his ideas got distorted.

Real Nihilism: there is no objective meaning, therefore it is necessary to make our own purpose and become gods in the ubermensch.

Idiot view of Nihilism: lelelele nothing matters! anything can mean whatever i want it to mean cuz ur le dumb for taking anything seriously! XD

But I think a lot of people mistake Nihilism for absurdism. Absurdism says nothing matters so just laugh at it and fuck off, much like the modern yolo concept. Nihilsm was basically "if life has no meaning we'll fucking make one".

>Why is that?
For reasons entirely unrelated to the conversation. So get back to the topic at hand please and stop arguing semantics (badly).

>Does that extend to believing that races cannot peaceably live together make one a racist?
I'm not here to call you a racist. I'm here to make the point that giving white people a pass just for being white is anti-aristocratic, in truth whites should be held to just as much scrutiny as everyone else (which is to say, lots) in the interests of collecting the best people wherever you may find them and filtering out the plebs.

>Nobody else believes
As said before, am I supposed to give a shit what the herd thinks?

>Can you point out where Nietzsche explicitly talks about the notion of an ubermensch existing independently of any racial group?
No because
a) That's so bizarrely specific that I'm positive no such explicit mention exists.
b) That has nothing to do with what I said. Which is that human beings can exist independently of groups, which Nietzsche reinforces constantly. If you don't know this it's glaringly obvious that you've never so much as opened one of his books.

But anyway, here you go
>The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
>The infuriating thing about an individual way of living. People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings.

Nietzsche was always 100% of the opinion that divorcing oneself from the herd isn't just possible, but is extremely admirable.

>Yes, a pan-European one - quite like Nietzsche. I believe in the unification of the entire white race under a single banner.
And why do you assign special significance to white people?

That wasn't him, that was me.

>Son, we know you're a straight Fedora-tipper, and we shouldn't even be listening to someone who claimed to be an hyperborean
Not modest enough for you, herdboy?

If you think Nietzsche was encouraging Christianity 2: Ubermensch edition (however that would work) then it automatically outs you as a Christian that likes Nietzsche but wants to have his cake and eat it too.

>No because
>a) That's so bizarrely specific that I'm positive no such explicit mention exists.

actually there is a passage where he says there are great men that rise like peaks of mountains out of the valley of humanity, but only once every era or something. i think he mentioned napoleon, caesar, geothe maybe. but i can't find it. that would indicate that the ubermensch is not racially defined seeing as his examples were all different races.

>I'm here to make the point that giving white people a pass just for being white is anti-aristocratic

A pass in regards to what? When did I say white people deserved a pass for being white?

Why do you keep drumming up strawmen?

>As said before, am I supposed to give a shit what the herd thinks?

Yes, you're such a radical in a western society for believing in race-blindness! It's totally unheard of and not the prevailing zeitgeist or anything.

>No

Great.

Moving on, neither of those two statements relate to a total negation of the concept of group identity in of itself. They either relate to the idea of elevating oneself above the tribe (i.e. you still exist in hierarchical relation to it) or are a reflection of Nietzsche's despondency with contemporaenous day German thinking.

>And why do you assign special significance to white people?

For believing in Pan-European Nationalism? Nietzsche did too.

And it has nothing to do with special snowflake status, my belief in Pan-European Nationalism is more or less an interest in our future survival as a distinct racial group at this point in time, given that present demographic trends will render us a minority on virtually every formerly white nation on earth within 100 years.

That's simply not good for me and it won't be good for whatever children I choose to have, nor their children either, so it's in my basic interest to resist it.

>reddit spacing

>For believing in Pan-European Nationalism? Nietzsche did too.

this has already been disproven sorry

As you define them real can't nonarbitrarily deny idiot

is this some sort of ubermensch poetry?

What? Make a coherent sentence.

...

>A pass in regards to what? When did I say white people deserved a pass for being white?
You didn't. I'm talking about myself here and why I'm not a racist if you don't remember the earlier part of the conversation.

>Yes, you're such a radical in a western society for believing in race-blindness! It's totally unheard of and not the prevailing zeitgeist or anything.

Ooooh, so sassy.

>hey either relate to the idea of elevating oneself above the tribe (i.e. you still exist in hierarchical relation to it) or are a reflection of Nietzsche's despondency with contemporaenous day German thinking.
No they don't. They have nothing to do with hierarchy (and before you jump down my throat, no, I'm not saying Nietzschean philosophy in general has nothing to do with hierarchy) and everything to do with individualism. To refer to the first one it's not about owning them, it's about owning yourself. At this point you're feebly interpreting Nietzsche like how non-fundamentalist Christians interpret the bible i.e pulling things out of your arse.

>For believing in Pan-European Nationalism?
No, because of this
>I believe in the unification of the entire white race under a single banner.

>my belief in Pan-European Nationalism is more or less an interest in our future survival as a distinct racial group at this point in time
And why is that important?

did literally nothing wrong

>that would indicate that the ubermensch is not racially defined

Nietzsche certainly believed in race, if you're trying to claim otherwise.

>this has already been disproven sorry

Incorrect.

>marxists.org

lol

>“a weakening and fi nally an abolition of nations, at least the European: so that as a consequence of continual crossing a mixed race, that of european man, must come into being out of them"

Incidentally, cosmopolitanism is a liberal concept to begin with, Nietzsche wouldn't have agreed with it.

Screenshotted.

>Ooooh, so sassy.

It's a fact. To posture at some sort of anti-herd position while embracing anti-racism is laughable.

>everything to do with individualism

Here is your problem, you see the two concepts as mutually antagonistic (individualism and group) because you are a liberal. When in reality, the organic understanding simply views the existence of ethnic/racial groups as part of human nature and immutable, as Nietzsche did. Of course, radical individualism can exist within this context, but it involves the individual becoming vastly superior in relation to the group which he belongs. Even if he exists above it, many leagues above it, he is still taxonomically a part of it in the same way Isaac Newton was still an Englishman despite being the founder of Physics as a real discipline.

>my belief in Pan-European Nationalism is more or less an interest in our future survival as a distinct racial group at this point in time

I already went on to explain this. I plan to have a family and children.

This is some basic level libtard stuff bro:

>"WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER YOU DIE? I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE A FAMILY AND I PLAN TO DIE ON MY OWN IN A SMALL STATE-FUNDED FLAT! SO WHY WOULD ANYONE CARE? FUCKING BIGOT!"

>Nietzsche wouldn't have agreed with it.
Nietzsche was cosmopolitan as fuck.

His vision of one united Europe (which I should remind you, would essentially amount to a one world government in the 1800s) was all about mixing together including with Jews and Turks to produce a distinctly cosmopolitan and multicultural people.

Everyone ITT has forgotten that Nietzsche contradicted everything that he wrote because he was so prone to speaking with hyperboles, exaggerations and metaphors.

So posting a single quote in support of a thesis geta you nowhere.

>would essentially amount to a one world government in the 1800s

You're extrapolating here. There were people who believed in a global race like Kalergi, Nietzsche wasn't one of them. He explicitly talked about a pan-European race.

>Jews

Possibly, the exact phrase he used was something like "potentially of some use".

>Turks

lol no.

Are you still angry about Drumpf, out of interest?

>Nietzsche certainly believed in race, if you're trying to claim otherwise.

that's not what i'm trying to claim. i'm saying he wrote a passage which clearly indicates that the type of man he sees as a free spirit/ubermensche/whatever is not bound to one race.

>marxists.org
>i won't read a nietzsche quote because i dont like the of the website that it is hosted on

>give you direct textual evidence of neitzsche's endorsement of cosmopolitanism
>nah he wouldn't of liekd that cos he dun liek what i dun like

No, there are numerous topics on which Nietzsche was extremely consistent. His thoughts on liberalism and egalitarianism were thoroughly consistent.

>give you direct textual evidence of neitzsche's endorsement of cosmopolitanism

>Cosmopolitanism
>Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human beings belong to a single community, based on a shared morality.
>Nietzsche believed that all Europeans shared common civilizational roots and should therefore unite together and breed to form a pan-European superstate
>This means he was in agreement with George Soros, Tony Blair and Angela Merkel!

>convictions are prisons

best quote

>free spirit

You're edging dangerously close to hippie-ish territory here lib. From what we know about what Nietzsche admired, it's far more likely his ubermensch would have been some sort of warrior prophet type figure.

You know when you look at a picture of a girl and you just know she has powerful, unsatisfied rape fantasies?

I mean you just know this girl cannot be satisfied by the sorts of "men" who inhabit a philosophy classroom.

His general posture is that of a relativism where no order of rank is in itself better than another. This includes his own and he knows it.

> posture at some sort of anti-herd position while embracing anti-racism is laughable.
But user, I thought you said no one else agreed with it! What happened?

>you see the two concepts as mutually antagonistic (individualism and group
They are, this is Nietzsche 101 as well. The herd is the arch-nemesis of the individual
>Parliamentarism, that is to say, public permission to choose between five main political opinions, insinuates itself into the favour of the numerous class who would like to appear independent and individual, and like to fight for their opinions. After all, however, it is a matter of indifference whether one opinion is imposed upon the herd, or five opinions are permitted to it. But he who diverges from the five public opinions and stands apart, has always the whole herd against him.
If you dare to be an individual you make an enemy of the herd. On this Nietzsche is clear.

>you are a liberal.
I'm not.
>ethnic/racial groups as part of human nature and immutable, as Nietzsche did
He didn't.

>Even if he exists above it, many leagues above it, he is still taxonomically a part of it in the same way Isaac Newton was still an Englishman despite being the founder of Physics as a real discipline.
I don't think you're following the argument very well because as I originally reminded you.

>I already went on to explain this. I plan to have a family and children.
I understand. But that's a non-sequitur
>I plan to have a family and children
>Therefore we must unite the white race under one banner
????????
Clearly something alludes me here.

>"WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER YOU DIE? I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE A FAMILY AND I PLAN TO DIE ON MY OWN IN A SMALL STATE-FUNDED FLAT! SO WHY WOULD ANYONE CARE?
Again you're hallucinating things no one even implied.

I also plan on having a family and children, and leaving the world in an acceptable state. But I still don't understand why you think this justifies your herdlike mentality.

>i use google definitions of words and my poltard weltanschauung to construct strawmen instead of actually reading what nietzsche actually wrote

i put another word in there for you to look up

haha holy shit you actually have never read him have you? there's a whole chapter in beyond good and evil dedicated to the free spirit.

marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch02.htm

yeah only ubermenschen like this can tip her fedora if you know what i mean
>pic related

What if they were Greco Roman style Veeky Forumscrates philosopher?

>Possibly, the exact phrase he used was something like "potentially of some use".
No, on this he was absolute. The Jews are the dogs bollocks and Europe better mix it up with them.

As far as he was concerned Jews were simply better than Germans for instance.

>Are you still angry about Drumpf, out of interest?
I never was, as a proper Hyperborean I understand that mass-politics is pleb shit.

Also, if you're seriously a Trump-fag and think Nietzsche is for you I'm laughing.