I just finished reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra. What do you make of this masterpiece?

I think you leveled up

Pretty spot on desu

this is just like my shounen animes

I think you might be the untermensch

Were you riding towards the bronx on line 1 in NY yesterday evening?

I took the 7 to the E, and then the N in Astoria for 4 years straight. Ayn Rand, bad Bible translations, and Nietzsche every fuckin day.

aren't we all

Jokes on you, there aren't any subways where I live

STEER CLEAR

I will NEVER understand how city dwelling LIBERAL subhumans can UNIRONICALLY read NIETSZCHE.

City-dwelling and scarf-and-cardigan-wearing sexually active leftist here.

I am writing my dissertation on Nietzsche because I love him. Does this upset you?

How can one "love" Nietzsche and remain an egalitarian? Or a socialist or even a supporter of welfare for that matter?

>You can only become the ubermensch by smashing the patriarchy!

Very easily. He's a very good writer and thinker.

>not answering the question

fucking retard

The Bible is also one of my favorite works despite being very agnostic on the issue of the whole God thing.

I think he did answer the question.

One can read the works of an author and recognize their brilliance and gifted writing abilities, while strongly disagreeing with everything they're writing.

I think Robert Barron is wrong about almost everything and that the world would be a better place if he was dead, but I can still enjoy reading him and recognize the man's insight and intelligence.

>How can one "love" Nietzsche and remain an egalitarian?
By being delusional, which is what most people do. He flat out tells you that he is an enemy of socialism in all its forms. Of course you can just read him for fun but the core of his philosophy is just that.

b/c le nihilism and 'god is dead' memes

theyve never read On the Tarantulas

>the world would be a better place if he was dead
>enjoy reading him and recognize the man's insight and intelligence.

How can one be so psychologically broken that they "love" what goes most strongly against their values? Its like a zionist Jew who "loves" Nazi books or a Nazi that "loves" reading about racial miscegenation.

I was not criticizing a egalitarian's appreciation of Nietszche's skill, but the egalitarian's "LOVE" of Nietszche.

Its fucking retarded

Would it be fair to say that Nietzsche would have joined ranks with the people on /pol/ if he were alive today?
Is it not fair to say that Nietzsche is 'redpilled' in the /pol/ sense, and that they are the living expressions of his Will to power?

Well I'd imagine that it'd be difficult to entertain an idea you disagree with without accepting it, if you were mentally disabled.

The average /pol/ user is worse than the average German in Nietzsche's time... so I doubt it. He'd definitely support them over the leftists though.

As far as will to power, isnt that universal among all humans? The egalitarian practices a will to power, just a disgusting depraved one that produces ugliness and inferiority.

Dumbass.

Entertaining =/= Loving.

Learn to read.

>The egalitarian practices a will to power, just a disgusting depraved one that produces ugliness and inferiority.

You're a shining example of that. Post your pic, lad

>if you see a highschool student with greasy hair reading it, you can bet that he sees himself as the ubermensch
> the dissonance between yourself and the Nietzschean ideal was so extreme as to be embarrassing.
napoleon, who nietzsche himself considered to be closest to the ideal of the ubermensch, was pretty much a greasy high schooler who thought he was a special snowflake

it just turned out he was right

Egalitarians bring down the superior for the sake of the inferior. This produces more inferiority. Simple.

Its still a will to power. Just an ugly one!

jesus that sounds refreshing, on the vancouver skytrain all you see is genre pulp, motivational books about "meditation and modern psychology" with lotuses on the cover, and the very rare pocket-sized new testament

>Would it be fair to say that Nietzsche would have joined ranks with the people on /pol/ if he were alive today?
no but he would have joined ranks with the robots on r9k

Protorandian garbage.

t. Post-Marxist excrement

>Protorandian garbage
can americans only think of things in terms of their shitty "philosophers"

Western "superiority" is parasitic. It requires a Society to sustain it, Law to protect it, and fiction to justify it. The "inferior" can live without the "superior, the "superior" cannot live without the "inferior".

Nietzsche belongs in the trash with Rand.

The white male is superior to nonwhites and women. Read Nietzcshe again

yes, a pyramid cap rests on a wide base

>white birth rates declining globally
>maladaptive by their own model of the world

What did they mean by this?

>Would it be fair to say that Nietzsche would have joined ranks with the people on /pol/ if he were alive today?

Probably, but almost certainly begrudgingly.

In the introduction of my new edition of The Will to Power, ol' Nietzsche was summed up quite well:

>"All in all, Nietzsche was an opponent of Socialism, an opponent of Nationalism, and an opponent of racial thinking. Apart from all these bents of mind, he might have made an outstanding Nazi." - Ernst Krieck

>Western "superiority" is parasitic. It requires a Society to sustain it, Law to protect it, and fiction to justify it. The "inferior" can live without the "superior, the "superior" cannot live without the "inferior".
this is every political system ever

i assume you've never been outside the west
>The white male is superior to nonwhites and women.
wrong, the mediterranean male is

all those nietzsche admires were greeks, romans and italians and a few other manlets of the mediterranean type

Got to the chapter with the pale criminal and stopped reading. I'm just so confused, I'll come back to it once I've read more neitchze.

>implying pureblood mediterraneans aren't white

also no one here seems to have grasped the true meaning of his tought. supposing that what we have of his works is true (because they were cucked by liberal/kikes scholars after wwii because of the claim that his sister had altered them), he postulated an existential superiority who had nothing to do with biological race.

he was against nationalism, as well as socialism and egalitarianism because they tend to value all people the same putting everyone on the same level on the basis of purely moral reasons that had nothing to do with one's merit and virtue. his tought cannot be applied to politics because the ubermensch is not defined as a money maker or a power grubber or a good family man, but simply as a man enjoying life in whatever way he fancies, mastering his body and mid, without letting himself to be influenced by his community or subjugated by imposed morals

>but simply as a man enjoying life in whatever way he fancies, mastering his body and mid, without letting himself to be influenced by his community or subjugated by imposed morals
no he isn't lmao

the point of the ubermensch is power over others, not being a total autist

>had nothing to do with biological race.
False, in Beyond Good and Evil he clearly said that some "races" and castes are spiritually superior.

Oh believe me, I can live just fine without niggers and marxists

>power over others

that cannot even be considered an interpretation of him because it makes it clear you have never read him and are just speaking through hearsay

nowhere in the 310 pages of thus spoke zarathustra he mentions anything like that. the nietzchean ubermensch is determined by his living life to the fullest pursuing whatever he truly aspires to

>nowhere in the 310 pages of thus spoke zarathustra he mentions anything like that. the nietzchean ubermensch is determined by his living life to the fullest pursuing whatever he truly aspires to
and he aspires to set himself above the herd
>that cannot even be considered an interpretation of him because it makes it clear you have never read him and are just speaking through hearsay
it's very clear that you're only read zarathustra and none of his other works

it might very well be, but still that does not imply that the ubermensch is defined on a racial basis. whites can be superior to niggers but that does not makes us ubermensch by default.

being above the heard does not imply having power over them. being better does not imply the lesser being your subject. do you even logic?

Yes, it has a strong genetic element but is much more than that.

A man who's ancestors were slaves for hundreds of years is very unlikely to become an "ubermensch" compared to a man of aristocratic origin.

Read Beyond Good and Evil you dumb cunt.

>but simply as a man enjoying life in whatever way he fancies
Nothing could be more wrong than that. If you make a mistake like that I can assume you don't know anything about him.

read more than zarathustra you autist

?

i sadly see today many dumb niggers being more alpha and more "aristocratic" (as in dominant) than fully white men who are cucked for on reason or another. also 90% of all late aristocrats where a bunch of sissy cucks so your point is moot at best.

if you are so convinced of what you say, that the ubermensch has a racial component, post a quote that I can find in one of nietzche's books. you won't convince anyone with shallow arguments such as that

>A man who's ancestors were slaves for hundreds of years is very unlikely to become an "ubermensch"
are you retarded

have you never read nietzsche you spastic

i will you faggot

>i will you faggot
i'm sorry were you literally talking as if you understand nietzsche after reading ONE book? sasuga Veeky Forums, you've reached a new low

>Egalitarians bring down the superior for the sake of the inferior

i've never understood how this theory and others like it from reactionaries are tenable, even on their own terms. if they were truly superior, they'd never be able to be brought down in the first place. if egalitarians can bring them down, that makes them superior, categorically

>i sadly see today many dumb niggers being more alpha and more "aristocratic" (as in dominant) than fully white men who are cucked for on reason or another

This only happens because our current egalitarian and slave moralist legal system protects them.

Without preferential treatment they'd be what they are,, the lowest rung on the ladder of races.

>also 90% of all late aristocrats where a bunch of sissy
Yes, LATE aristocrats AKA the ones who let their countries get rekt

>that the ubermensch has a racial component
I wasnt really talking about the ubermench specifically, which is why I used quote marks. The poster I was speaking to used the term.

Nietszche clearly says that their are noble races who practice master morality and dont fall the "evil" meme, that is what I speak of.

I dont know if he specifically said that the ubermesnch is genetic but it doesnt matter because he clearly said that superiority is.

He is right. I'd like to direct you toward aphorism 479 of Human All Too Human where he talks about the connection of wealth and the purification of a race, i.e. aristocracy (Geburtsadel). In Daybreak 272 he talks about the purification, quoting a remark that God created blacks and whites but the devil created mixed races, but in Genealogy of Morals he talks about how "der Neger" (black) represents a primal version of man 'der Neger (diese als Repräsentanten des vorgeschichtlichen Menschen genommen' (GM 2. 7)

>reactionary

dumb meme word, everybody is a reactionary to somthing

10 inferior people can kill 1 superior person. Why are their so many "inferior" people? Because they fucked up and let them outbreed them, as well as mix with them.

>He confuses strength/power for greatness/nobility/etc

You're precisely the sort of retard Nietzsche was calling out in his Untimely Meditations.

Specifically, those who believed German culture was superior to that of France because the former had defeated the latter militarily.

Similarly, the Greeks were superior to the Romans, despite having been brought down by them militarily.

if the person was really superior theyd be smart or strong enough not to get killed. they are a priori inferior. numbers dont matter.

>Why are their so many 'inferior' people? Because they fucked up

superior people don't fuck up. inferior people do. thats the difference.

>and let them outbreed them

that also makes them inferior. if they were truly superior, they would have never lost control. and biologically speaking, evolutionary fitness is manifest by reproduction. those that reproduce more are very simply more fit than those who cannot or do not reproduce, for whatever reason.

we're not talking even superficially about military force. this is a more general a matter of who is in power, who has control, and who can and does take down who. the strong dominate, by definition.

> if egalitarians can bring them down, that makes them superior, categorically
yeah and if I crash a dump truck into a 500 million dollar cutting edge space telescope the truck is the one to survive and therefore is superior technology lol

>Atheists who reference this book/Nietzche

Fucking lmao, I don't think it's possible to miss the point any further

made me wish i could read german because there is no decent translation into english as far as i know. i liked beyond good and evil better

>if the person was really superior theyd be smart or strong enough not to get killed. they are a priori inferior. numbers dont matter.
>>Why are their so many 'inferior' people? Because they fucked up
>superior people don't fuck up. inferior people do. thats the difference.

Superior =/= perfect, learn to read dumbass.

the analogy doesnt work because youre talking about human-made technology whereas we're talking about biological organisms

your analogy fails on another level because you're comparing complexity with force

you dont have to be perfect to dominate, just superior

superiority is a lot more than domination.

If Alexander the Great was killed by malaria (as the story goes), does that mean malaria is superior to him? Lol, of course not.

Also you should understand that only in the last 100 years has the inferior people been truly dominant over the superior, its nothing compared to the history of mankind. Its just an anomaly, a fluke.

Soon it will be as it was.

>the analogy doesnt work because youre talking about human-made technology whereas we're talking about biological organisms
human organisms are even more bewilderingly complex and separated than machines
and you are the one only talking about force, which is basically the dragon ball z conception of the universe

He's redpilled.

>the strong dominate

Which is true.

"Strong" does not mean "best", however.

youre comparing a virus to human beings, which, in the first place, we're talking about human beings relative to other human beings. and if there are human beings that are genetically immune to malaria, they are superior to those who aren't, no matter what their brain can do. and second, if a virus is capable of killing all mankind, that would actually mean evolutionary yes, the virus would be a superior life form than a human. taking for granted the weird definitions of whether or not a virus is an organism or biological 'life'

>inferior people been truly dominant over the superior

see, that just doesn't make sense. inferior people can't dominate by definition. they'd either fail out of incompetence or outdone by smarter and stronger people around them. either that or the strong are just.. letting inferior people dominate them? then that makes these supposedly superior people inferior too, for allowing that to happen.

the time scale thing i might be able to agree with you about. so in the whole history of mankind, who have been the truly dominant people for the most amount of time since the appearance of homo sapiens?

>you are the one only talking about force

no, your example involved the force (in terms of physics) of a dump truck destroying a telescope. its the very premise of your metaphor in the first place.

you dont seem to have gotten the point about evolution, which is that the genotype or phenotype leaves the most copies of itself in successive generations is the most evolutionary fit. those who reproduce more are more fit than those who dont, because the latter arent passing their genes on through time. there are reasons they either cant or wont reproduce, and those reasons constitute their evolutionary weakness. this is natural selection at work.

you dont seem to even understand your own argument either or how it fits into the larger historical and global scheme of things. you seem to imply that complexity is the condition of superiority. which is demonstrably false. ill give you an opportunity to refine your argument.

So in the only work that Nietzsche personally oversaw the publishing of, he states his disgust of national socialism. Yet this theme is absent in all his other works, and I've been told they were edited even in the original German after his death.

Is there any truth to this, and if so, is there any possibility that his original writings exist?

You keep misusing words and pretending valid comparisons are invalid.

No point talking to you.

superiority and dominance are different things, a hobo who killed a male model nobel prize winner is not superior to him. If you think he is you are either insane or lack basic English skills, either way your wasting everybody's time

It's fairly well-established that he was a Nazi.
Rumour has it that Hitler initially wanted Nietzsche to serve in his cabinet before the whole syphilis thing.

Really makes you think

>women are not even shallow

Probably the funniest line Nietzsche ever wrote. There is something in the wording (especially in German) that always make me lose my shit.

His sister edited some of his books later in life to include antisemitic sentiments.

Wrong.

>read Will to Power
>quotes Krieck

Fuck off

>you dont seem to have gotten the point about evolution, which is that the genotype or phenotype leaves the most copies of itself in successive generations is the most evolutionary fit. those who reproduce more are more fit than those who dont, because the latter arent passing their genes on through time. there are reasons they either cant or wont reproduce, and those reasons constitute their evolutionary weakness. this is natural selection at work.
I would be willing to bet e. coli not only outnumber but outmass all the mammals in the entire world put together, let's all bow to the bacteria

the absurdity of which illustrates another of nietzsches points, the most powerful, sensitive and far-reaching examples of a species are also the rarest

So the antisemitism was his sister currying favor with the party? That's all that was altered?

Krieck was quoted in the Will to Power by R. Kevin Hill and Michael A. Scarpitti, dumb fuck.

>a hobo who killed a male model nobel prize winner is not superior to him

i am speaking in biological, evolutionary terms. stuff like whether or not people look good or win prizes are more subjective, human value judgments. if the hobo can successfully kill competition and pass his genes on while the male model nobel prize winner is dead, his genes eliminated from the pool forever, the hobo is in fact superior in biological and evolutionary terms.

please tell me what words i am misusing?

evolution is a form of power
jesus christ had no children yet he's clearly more powerful than a 13th century tibetan salt miner who had as many as 12 children

le nihilism=Nietzsche meme

I think this is what showcases the inferiority of the Darwinian complex of Nietzsche to the God-accepting, faith manifesting existentialism of Kierkegaard, where the product of one's input on reality is actually simply a series of understanding choices one makes in life and with their perception. Where your overall success is not determined, but predestined.

>the darwinian complex of nietzsche
u what

i know your example is meant to be absurd, but you dont even get to the even more absurd reality: no need to bow when e coli is using us as hosts.

you also make an important turn in your sentence that shouldnt be taken for granted, from is to ought. e coli outnumbering and outmassing all mammals would be something factual, an "is." then you jump to "ought" by sarcastically saying let's bow to the bacteria. it doesnt matter if we seriously bow or are ignorant of the existence of e coli--as a species, it is more predominant, has lived longer, and tolerates a greater range of environments than human beings.

your argument and others like it seem to amount to tautology: human beings are superior because they are human (t. human being)

thank you, you are actually able to comprehend my arguments and make something of a cogent reply. being more of an empiricist than nietzsche (gasp), i would counter that jesus christ only exists as a distorted fiction in the minds of the living, and has less power than the actually-living descendants of the tibetan salt miner

we may disagree on epistemological terms. i acknowledge and respectfully maintain distance from identifying with your position in particular

>your argument and others like it seem to amount to tautology: human beings are superior because they are human (t. human being)
it would be pathological to judge by any standards other than my own

underated

>reading bible in public
i never understood this