The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Nietzsche's Rehabilitation
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In recent decades, the reputation of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has been largely rehabilitated despite the unfortunate events of 1933-1945. (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)

Nietzsche’s popularity with the Nazis has been widely blamed upon mendacious editing by his sister and her anti-Semitic husband after the philosopher’s mental breakdown in 1888. In Nietzsche’s defense it is often pointed out that while perhaps he didn’t much like Jews (other than Spinoza), he really hated anti-Semites.

I think Nietzsche is respectable again today for several reasons:

First, he truly was super smart with lots of brilliant ideas.

Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).

Third, Nietzsche’s thought is seen as corrosive of Christianity, so he is on Team Good. (To be precise, however, Nietzsche’s objection to Christianity was not that some Christians had owned slaves, but that a lot of Christians had been slaves. Christianity, to Nietzsche, was a contemptible “slave morality.”)

Fourth, here is a Tablet article by Guy Elgat about why Nietzsche appeals to the left:

And it is precisely Nietzsche’s view that our identities are contingent on this and other ways upon the historical conditions in which we find ourselves that has been especially appealing to thinkers on the left. Here the emphasis is put on what can be regarded as Nietzsche’s anti-essentialism; on the view, namely, that although our past greatly defines who we are, our values, our psychological abilities and even our feelings and emotions are not set in stone and fixed forever by our nature or our nurture, but are an accidental result of the interplay of various forces or powers, and are, as such, in principle contestable, reversible, open to revaluation and reinterpretation. If one is powerful enough, Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values, and thus become an autonomous free spirit, liberated from the shackles that have hitherto controlled one’s fate.

… Thus Foucault was greatly taken by Nietzsche’s emphasis on the historical nature of human existence and on how central notions of how we think about and relate to ourselves and others—notions such as sanity and madness, sexuality, normality and abnormality—are constructed by various social institutions at different times and under different conditions. … Derrida, on the other hand, found in Nietzsche philosophical arsenal that enabled him, for example, to destabilize long-standing and seemingly fixed hierarchical oppositions that informed Western thought, such as presence/absence, speech/writing, interiority/exteriority, and pure/impure, and thus influenced later theoreticians in their attempts to deconstruct race and gender identities and expose their fluidity and nonbinary nature.

On the other hand, Nietzsche’s preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values sound like a John Milius screenplay or an alt-right Tweet: “Steppe barbarian. Nationalist, Fascist, Nudist Bodybuilder! Purification of world. Revolt of the damned. Destruction of the cities!”

But, at least, Nietzsche wasn’t an essentialist. That would be racist!

 
Hide 228 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It was Foucault who rehabilitated Nietzsche in Europe who didn’t even need that much rehabilitation to begin with. To your corrosive to Christianity point notorious bitter atheist Walter Kauffman was rehabilitating as early as the sixties for precisely that purpose.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    One of the most fascinating aspects of Nietzsche's "rehabilitation" on the Left is that Betty Friedan, the Jewish feminist, approvingly cited Nietzsche's doctrine of the "will to power" in The Feminine Mystique.

    Anyone who has read Nietzsche thoroughly, and is familiar with his aphorisms on both Jews and women will find Friedan's citation of him quite astonishing.

    , @anonymous
    If memory serves, Kaufmann was himself a Jew.
  2. Sid says:

    Nietzsche was also an arch individualist, which contrasted with Fascism’s collectivist ideology. As such, a lot of people who read Nietzsche at face value come away thinking that Nietzsche would NEVER endorse Fascism, because he was an individualist and they weren’t!

    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, “What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?”

    The best autocracy is master-morality for the autocrat and slave-morality for everyone else.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, “What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?”

    Which Communist leader didn't make that connection? Wasn't that kind of the point all along? Mao apparently had loads of concubines. Castro as well. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    https://youtu.be/BbLdAWef9C8
    , @Moshe
    Yup.

    For those who want that sort of thing anyway.

    Here's a truth about me.

    I want to be the sort of person happy to reign alone and be God of the Universe but thus far there appears to have been some sort of bug in the system that, in practice, has kept me from actually enjoying that.

    This may sound made up and it's true that many people lie or exaggerate here and elsewhere so I understand if you don't believe me but there have been a couple of dozen instances where I could have easily started a following. Where people almost literally worshipped me. In their eyes I was a guru in whom they wanted to disolve their identites.

    Again, I fully expect not to be believes by some and that's fine.

    But my point is that I genuonely didn't like it and would shoo people away. It sort of disturbs me that I don't and didn't like it, as something aeems to be saying that I should want to be a God (to be fully honest, for the unbridled control of sexual slavery, a virgin-like fantasy despite my non-virgin status, perhaps because I started late due to religious restrictions).

    But anyway, I found it repulsive. And now I don't even let it start. As soon as it begins I stress the importance of his/her individuality and get away.

    Part of why this has disturbed me is on account of my enjoyment in Nietzsche but ultimately I humbly (and tentatively) defer. Perhaps a love of man and appreciation of his/her ego-existant individuality is just as legitimate as the psychopath's desire for Power.

    I'm still working on myself (to desire being an ubermentsch [is it shklav moral that keeps me from snatching and controlling it?]) so perhaps (hopefully?) I will psychologically healthily desire and, if not chase it, accept it when it arrives to kiss my shoes.
  3. Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).

    Nietzsche once noted that his prose style was strongly influenced by that modern invention, the typewriter. He felt that typing simplified his sentences, made him less prone to the verbosity for which German philosophers are notorious.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Perhaps you mean "less prone to, less given to, less vulnerable to the weakness for verbosity, wordiness, and sesquipedalianism for which German philosophers notorious are".

    They certainly infected American academics, didn't they?
    , @Rapparee

    "He felt that typing simplified his sentences, made him less prone to the verbosity for which German philosophers are notorious."
     
    A few months into my philosophy requirement in college, our professor apologized to us: "Next semester, we'll be reading [in translation] Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, among others. I'm afraid you're going to develop a passionate hatred of German-speakers".

    "But, at least, Nietzsche wasn’t an essentialist. That would be racist!"
     
    At the end of said philosophy class, one firm conclusion particularly lodged in my mind: "So, the only really logical and consistent positions are with Aristotle or with Nietzsche". Everything in between tends to collapse back to one or the other eventually.
  4. The only people I’ve ever read who make a big deal of Nietzsche are Christians who go on about how finally there’s an anti-Christian thinker who knows what the endpoint of a rejection of Christianity is (nihilism, Nazism, cult of power, despair…in any case something really bad!).
    Or maybe alt-right weirdoes are also into him (some of them even pretend to read Heidegger after all).

    • Replies: @guest
    How is it possible you've missed all the left-Nietzcheans? If none but alt-right weirdos bothered he'd be about as well-known as Evola. He'd never have been the name he is today--even as a negative example--if the left hadn't popularized him. Though admittedly Christians play into it. "God is dead" really trolled them.

    Not counting fascists, there's not a great amount of rightist (or alleged rightist) Nietzschean interest. Except among right-libertarians like Mencken. There's a great unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in the mind of Ayn Rand. Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    But these are drops in the pond compared to the left, which as of now still owns high culture. If you know Nietzsche's name and not from the 5-minute Hate sessions, it's because they want you to.

    , @Mikey Darmody
    Of course, the German educational apparatus cannot teach Nietzsche's importance. It's too busy teaching refugees techniques to sleep with German women.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_C--olgLsQE
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    in any case something really bad!
     
    Because Germans never get to "something really bad!" do they?
  5. Good points. Some other reasons for his popularity:

    He was no anti-Semite. His last books make that pretty clear.

    He’s damn funny when he wants to be. His aphorisms really can bring out the LOL’s.

    He brought about some compelling rethinkings of the Classical era.

    Unlike Derrida’s sludge, Nietzsche’s deconstruction- which he invented- is concise and says a lot with a little.

    Kauffman did a lot to make him accessible.

    His cranky stuff is almost endearing. You really get the portrait of a man thinking-a literary shading that makes his writing more human.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @guest
    His anti-semitism or lackthereof is neither here nor there regarding Nietzsche's popularity. Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Just recently, they started publicizing the fact that Mencken was anti-semitic. Not sure why, but he wasn't unpersoned as a result. He's still semi-respectable, because he's useful against Christianity and the booboosie. Martin Luther is a name you can bring up in polite conversation, though not far back people were writing books tracing the Holocaust back to him. Wagner is always coming in and out of acceptability.

    They're always holding back, pushing forward, taking away and putting back again the stigmata of anti-semitism at their convenience. It hardly matters whether Nietzsche really was anti-semitic or not, either. Because they could just say he was, and what's the difference? It worked for a damn long time, if only by implication.
    , @SFG
    I think the whole macho will-to-power thing really appeals to 15-year-old boys, especially if they don't read the whole thing. There's a reason superheroes never die.
    , @Lot
    Yes a lot of modern leftist crit/deconstructionist theory comes from Fred N. So does the focus on "power relations."

    You can agree with his classical v slave morality analysis while having a preference for either one.
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Those who spread memes rule the world. Nietzsche was able to turn a phrase that stuck in your mind, and that seems to matter more than well reasoned arguments when it comes to persuading the masses.

    I’m reminded of how the term White Genocide went viral. It was Bob Whitaker’s brainchild, and it has forever altered the political plans of our elites.

    • Replies: @Abe

    Those who spread memes rule the world. Nietzsche was able to turn a phrase that stuck in your mind, and that seems to matter more than well reasoned arguments when it comes to persuading the masses.
     
    Periodically I get into some crime/police TV series, like WIRE or DEXTER (incidentally DEXTER's Sgt. Dokes is probably one of my favorite black TV characters of all time- he's a realistically-portrayed African-American policeman who's not some ridiculous rocket hacker surgeon genius counter-stereotype, just a tough, honorable, intuitive officer of the law who can smell a psychopath from 1000 yards) and then start fantasizing about quitting my boring desk job to become a cop. But then as THE WIRE makes blazingly clear, if you're a beat cop or a detective, above you is the police chief. Who answers to whatever schmuck is currently the mayor. Who has to keep an eye out for the governor. And both better be wary of the Attorney General. Who serves at the pleasure of the President. And as the last 8 years made abundantly clear, the supposedly "no-drama", "dignified", and "inspirational" President has his psyche constantly buffeted by whatever combination of adolescent resentments, fake news, non-replicable social science, social media sh!t storms, and clown intellectual film-flam able to get the most purchase on his affectations at a given moment. So if you're a cop on the street risking your life every day, your boss is not even President Bizarro, it's Ta Genius Coates.
  7. Nietzsche is dead.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
  8. Nietzsche has been able to transcend boundaries. Not only the German/English but the Christian/Non Christian.
    Non Christian in the context of Nietzsche historically meant “Western European Atheists/Empiricist Skeptics” but in the Open Borders/Free Internet modernity we live in the definition has become very (rightfully?) expansive.
    As an example

    Salafist French Rap’s #1 Hit Jam is a Islamist discussion and rejection of Nietzsche. I’m a mortal enemy of salfism and not too much bigger a fan of rap, but it’s worth pointing out that Nietzsche still has a “street” presence. Discussion/refutation of his tenants from an Abrahamic world view is still so au courrant that Parisian hipsters bang they hedz to it. This song comes from an album which got the #9 spot in France

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Nietzsche has been able to transcend boundaries. Not only the German/English but the Christian/Non Christian.
     
    You forgot the parasite/host, victim/perpetrator, cis/trans gender, straight/bended/contorted/distorted, mustached/clean-shaven, mouse/cat/dog/dogeater/eater-of-dog-eater, animal/vegetable/stone, stoned/bemoaned, etc. Because Nietschze was dah man, no?

    Street cred? Now that is the basis for improving the lot of humanity!
    , @Cagey Beast
    Some of the lyrics:
    - " 'God is dead', says Nietzsche. 'Nietzsche is dead' signed God"
    - "You know the law, we know the Judge"
    - " 'No gods or masters' except Master Kanter" [Maître Kanter is a chain of tavern restaurants]

    The chorus is "we will all go to Paradise, all to Paradise, In šāʾ ʾAllāh".

    That rap video is both clever and very sinister. It's like IRA songs in that way. "The SAM Song" springs to mind.

    Nietzsche gets another francosexual rap shout out in this newer video:

    http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/le-rap-de-deux-youtubeurs-pour-reviser-la-philo_4155d7fc-4b7e-11e7-9fe8-035f9d604401/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=social_lefigaro&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1496854780

    I notice they mention a quote of Nietzsche's: "become who you are", which is a motto Richard Spencer has taken up. I like it myself.

    Julien Rochedy points out that the rap gets Nietzsche wrong on nihilism. Rochedy says they call Nietzsche a nihilist when he actually wrote against it:
    https://twitter.com/JRochedy/status/872521593045569536

  9. @German_reader
    The only people I've ever read who make a big deal of Nietzsche are Christians who go on about how finally there's an anti-Christian thinker who knows what the endpoint of a rejection of Christianity is (nihilism, Nazism, cult of power, despair...in any case something really bad!).
    Or maybe alt-right weirdoes are also into him (some of them even pretend to read Heidegger after all).

    How is it possible you’ve missed all the left-Nietzcheans? If none but alt-right weirdos bothered he’d be about as well-known as Evola. He’d never have been the name he is today–even as a negative example–if the left hadn’t popularized him. Though admittedly Christians play into it. “God is dead” really trolled them.

    Not counting fascists, there’s not a great amount of rightist (or alleged rightist) Nietzschean interest. Except among right-libertarians like Mencken. There’s a great unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in the mind of Ayn Rand. Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    But these are drops in the pond compared to the left, which as of now still owns high culture. If you know Nietzsche’s name and not from the 5-minute Hate sessions, it’s because they want you to.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi

    Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.
     
    That's because Nietzsche writes in pretty intense language - "the dead mediocrity of the masses" for example is heavy stuff. It easily lends itself to a ruthless mind.

    It also lends itself easily to comedy. From the classic Onion:

    http://www.theonion.com/article/new-nietzschean-diet-lets-you-eat-whatever-you-fea-1703

  10. (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)

    Is he really, though? In my experience, at least, the only people who know about Francis Galton tend to be people (like myself) who think he was a very impressive polymath. I hear, for example, Madison Grant (or the paraphrasing of Grant’s views in the Great Gatsby) mentioned by leftists as the ultimate Anglo-American eugenicist proto-Nazi much more often. (Of course I could well be mistaken here.)

    • Replies: @guest
    Grant is definitely a more obscure name. I hear about him about as often as Lothrop Stoddard. Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can't tear him down for obvious reasons. They have to tread a bit carefully with Galton because they don't want any bad press rubbing off on Darwin, who's very important to them. But that only goes so far.

    There are bigger names in racism, but probably not in "scientific racism," which eugenics and psychometrics are by definition. Unless you have leftist or protected group status as counterbalance, like a Sanger.

    , @Lot
    I agree, Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard are much easier targets than Galton. They had law and history degrees and lacked Galton's extreme intelligence or lasting contributions to science.

    Coincidentally, yesterday I read Stoddard's gushy account of his "audiences" with Hitler and Mussolini and others he met in the Third Reich in 39 and 40. There were so many momentous events packed into that short period of time, and it has been fascinating to immerse myself in my recent pleasure reading into contemporary accounts.
    , @inselaffen
    Generally, yes he is. I flicked through one of those 'Introducing...' picture books for Genetics some time ago and on page 5 or so they have a picture of Galton dressed in a Nazi uniform saying 'My cousin is a genius, therefore I must be a genius!'. The purpose of the page is to illustrate how less discerning people (compared to glorious St. Darwin) can misinterpret St. Darwin's ideas. That pretty much sums up the mainstream image of Galton as far as I know.

    Otherwise Galton is usually mentioned as 'father of Eugenics' (which, as we know a priori, is bad) which is usually a preface to a description of how evil whites used this idea in the early 20th century (cue lots of images of WWII artillery firing) before it became uncool (er, I mean 'pseudoscience'). Again, this discussion usually involves the qualifier 'this is not what Darwin wanted/believed/stood for!', etc. Discussion of whether it's what Galton wanted, for that matter, is not usually included.

    There have already been a couple of student rumblings at UCL calling for it to memory hole it's association with Galton (in line with similar student movements worldwide calling for the removal/renaming of 'white legacy' buildings), eg http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-does-a-university-deal-with-its-historic-legacy-of-eugenics
    , @Anon
    There is a Midsomer Murders episode that is very down on Galton. One suspect mentions he is a Galton fan, and at first the detective is all "Galton! Discoverer of fingerprints! Great guy!" But then he starts reading up on Galton and finds out about the eugenics stuff, and by the end he's theatrically throwing his Galton book in the trash. And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.
  11. Anonymous [AKA "Rofflestiltskin"] says:

    Nietzsche was aware of socialists and democrats in his day who purported to subscribe to his doctrines, and calling them “tarantulas,” told them to get lost in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

    ‘Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble!

    There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge.

    Thus I speak to you in a parable — you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of the your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

    The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. “What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge” — thus they speak to each other. “We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not” — thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. “And ‘will to equality’ shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!”

    You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy — perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers — erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

    What was silent in the father speaks in the son; and often I found the son the unveiled secret of the father.

    They are like enthusiasts, yet it is not the heart that fires them — but revenge. And when they become elegant and cold, it is not the spirit but envy that makes them elegant and cold. Their jealousy leads them even on the paths of thinkers; and this is the sign of their jealousy: they always go too far, till their weariness must in the end lie down to sleep in the snow. Out of every one of their complaints sounds revenge; in their praise there is always a sting, and to be a judge seems bliss to them.

    But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had — power.

    My friends, I do not want to be mixed up and confused with others. Some preach my doctrine of life and are at the same time preachers of equality and tarantulas. Although they are sitting in their holes, these poisonous spiders, with their backs turned on life, they speak in favor of life, but only because they wish to hurt. They wish to hurt those who now have power, for among these the preaching of death is still most at home. If it were otherwise, the tarantulas would teach otherwise; they themselves were once the foremost slanderers of the world and burners of heretics.

    I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality. For, to me justice speaks thus: “Men are not equal.” Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the overman be if I spoke otherwise?’ Translated Walter Kaufmann, 1883/1954

    These words should strike a chord with any longtime iSteve-Reading Racist. Of course, today the tarantulas do have power, and their thirst for revenge and burning heretics is limited only by an increasingly obsolete body of constitutional/legal strictures that our tarantrulers are quickly working to dismantle. Decayed Nietzscheanism, one of the intellectual arms of the tarantulas, is a principal characteristic of the modern university, with leftists totally unmoved by Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity/liberalism and its slave values. Nietzsche ran a tremendous risk in proclaiming the arrival of the overman, a risk whose proximate outcome was Nazism, and whose more distant consequence, in the wake and because of Nazism’s defeat, was the hastening of precisely the outcome the doctrine was intended to forestall: the last man, who lives longest.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    These words should strike a chord with any longtime iSteve-Reading Racist
     
    That's great! Now all three of you can rejoice! What? Oh, my mistake, both of you can rejoice!
    , @daniel le mouche
    Zarathustra is possibly the lamest crap I've ever read (well, about a third of it), up there with Wilde's Dorian Gray. The passage you quote brings it all back: the wheezing invalid going on and on about natural inequality and the overman. Like many a macho man writer.
  12. Lot says:

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).

    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read. Das Kapital is in the same awful style. But Marx’s letters are witty and enjoyable, and The Communist Manifesto I think ranks at up near the top right below Common Sense for propaganda prose quality. Both the first and last paragraphs have become cliches.

    A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!

    This is good too:

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

    Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read.
     
    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.Kant's not exactly fun, but he's at least trying to be clear.
    , @Weltanschauung
    Hear, hear! Also this:

    Constant revolutionizing of production, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air ...
     
    , @Luke Lea
    I always suspected Engles penned the Communist Manifesto, using Marx's ideas. He was the real writer.
    , @Moshe
    Yes, Marx wrote clearly and offered some excellent and clear-sighted and stunningly accurate (and enduring!) observations that, were we not so enslaved and cowed, would open our eyes and cause a hippie revolt such as seen in the 20s and 60s. (Or so I've heard.)

    By tge way, if you can let go of obsessively following every word and just relax while taking this in I've found it more emotionally edifying than text.

    Again, it requires a relaxed state of mind and a lack of intellectual concern with catching every word rather than getting the feeling, as you would from a song on the radio.


    https://youtu.be/znMkqEnO6d4
  13. @yaqub the mad scientist
    Good points. Some other reasons for his popularity:

    He was no anti-Semite. His last books make that pretty clear.

    He's damn funny when he wants to be. His aphorisms really can bring out the LOL's.

    He brought about some compelling rethinkings of the Classical era.

    Unlike Derrida's sludge, Nietzsche's deconstruction- which he invented- is concise and says a lot with a little.

    Kauffman did a lot to make him accessible.

    His cranky stuff is almost endearing. You really get the portrait of a man thinking-a literary shading that makes his writing more human.

    His anti-semitism or lackthereof is neither here nor there regarding Nietzsche’s popularity. Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Just recently, they started publicizing the fact that Mencken was anti-semitic. Not sure why, but he wasn’t unpersoned as a result. He’s still semi-respectable, because he’s useful against Christianity and the booboosie. Martin Luther is a name you can bring up in polite conversation, though not far back people were writing books tracing the Holocaust back to him. Wagner is always coming in and out of acceptability.

    They’re always holding back, pushing forward, taking away and putting back again the stigmata of anti-semitism at their convenience. It hardly matters whether Nietzsche really was anti-semitic or not, either. Because they could just say he was, and what’s the difference? It worked for a damn long time, if only by implication.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Yeah, yeah, I do. The point is that "the Jewish question" was so front and center with him from the go. We're not talking TS Eliot here.
    , @attilathehen
    From reading Mencken, I notice that he's very anti-WASP. He was of German ancestry. He was against white Southern holy roller type Christianity, but had respect for the RCC Latin rite mass (the one during his time).

    He also wrote that the way to deal with white Southern holy rollers was for Southern blacks to convert to Islam.

    But when dealing with Nietszche and Mencken today, whether they are anti-Semites, anti-black doesn't really matter because their beliefs would not stand today as we now know about IQ/race differences.

    Their writings have to be viewed within the time they wrote (a white Christian world), subjected to IQ/race science of today and seen as interesting historically, but not relevant anymore.

    If Mencken were alive today, what would he think of the RCC? If Nietszche were alive today what would he think of Islam? We are living in a different world and need to look at these writers from a pre-1968 and new 21st century perspective of IQ/race.

    , @Lot
    Mencken's antisemitism is forgiven because he disliked most everyone.
  14. Nietzsche was a masterful aphorist, and that works well with the masses because you don’t have to be smart to get them. Most people aren’t very smart, and don’t have time for high-falutin’ philosophy. You can read them a few at a time while you take a whiz.

    For the intellectual, Nietzsche is deadly clever, and he has longer works with extended arguments. He’s not a very consistent thinker, especially not at range, I don’t think. But smart people like inconsistency, too. And if they’re lazy, like most people are, their minds can drift a few times per page without losing the plot.

  15. “(To be precise, however, Nietzsche’s objection to Christianity was not that some Christians had owned slaves, but that a lot of Christians had been slaves. Christianity, to Nietzsche, was a contemptible “slave morality.”)”

    Don’t suppose it ever occurred to Nietzsche that while it’s undoubtedly true that the leaders of the pagan religions from the Greco-Roman world which he seemed to hold in high regard may have indeed owned slaves, a lot of ordinary men/even slaves of classic antiquity worshipped the same gods as well. It’s like, sure, everyone would like to focus on the top 1% (leaders; warriors; thinkers; etc), but what happens to the other 99%?

    Fact remains that Nietzsche’s ideas found full acceptance first among Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged is pure homage to Zarathrustra) and the Nazis. If anything, its likely that Hitler used Nietzsche’s ideas in such a way to fit his racial theories and give the government a “moral” or philosophical basis for existence.

    • Replies: @guest
    First among the Nazis, who started getting the message out 20 years or more after Nietzsche's death and 30 years after he went mad? Or Rand, who didn't reach a wide audience until she published the Fountainhead 50 years after his death? That's just inaccurate.

    These people, Randians and Nazis, were influential but outside the Western mainstream. Nietzsche has been in and out of it at different points, but often enough is one of the Cool Kids. He didn't get that way by being first picked up by Nazis and Objectivists. We probably wouldn't know his name if he'd have sat on the shelf for that long.
    , @Lot
    The Foutainhead is closer, but Rand was negative about Nietzsche.
  16. Nietzsche’s writing is a pleasure in small doses. But his books is a chore after the first few pages. They generally could be rewritten in one fifth the space without loss of content. He is also repetitive and deliberately obscure in a way that is disrespectful to his readers.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Excellent description he also reused the same ideas a lot so if you read a couple of his books in succession it can be frustrating. Kierkegaard was the same way but he was a lot more profound a thinker than Nietzsche.
    , @syonredux

    Nietzsche’s writing is a pleasure in small doses. But his books is a chore after the first few pages.
     
    He's a bit like Emerson in that regard. Of course, Emerson is a much more extreme case. I can only take him a paragraph at a time.

    Interesting to note that Nietzsche liked Emerson a lot; he said that reading him always cheered him up when he was depressed.
  17. @Lot

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).
     
    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read. Das Kapital is in the same awful style. But Marx's letters are witty and enjoyable, and The Communist Manifesto I think ranks at up near the top right below Common Sense for propaganda prose quality. Both the first and last paragraphs have become cliches.


    A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.



    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!
     
    This is good too:

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

    Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    ...

    The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
     

    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read.

    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.Kant’s not exactly fun, but he’s at least trying to be clear.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    I find non phenomenology Hegel to be pretty enjoyable.
    , @MBlanc46
    And when you have a reasonable idea who it is that Kant is addressing, and you make an effort to master his jargon, it makes sense. It's understandable, even if you don't agree with him. I'm not so sure that's the case with Hegel. And to me Heidegger is beyond understanding (although there are people who claim to understand him, so there might be something to it).
    , @David Davenport
    Not counting fascists, there’s not a great amount of rightist (or alleged rightist) Nietzschean interest. Except among right-libertarians like Mencken. There’s a great unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in the mind of Ayn Rand. Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    Mencken a Lib Lib Libertarian? Only in some Herrenmoral versus Sklavenmoral sense, not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse.

    Paul Gottfried, the same Paul Gottfried who publishes here in Unz, has criticized ole Henry M.'s inaccurate English language translations of N.

    //////////////////////////////////////


    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.

    Our own Intelligent Dasein comprehends Heidegger entirely and perfectly. I am waiting for Mr. Dasein to explain Heidegger to the rest of us.
  18. Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values

    Nietzsche is rubbish. It’s just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world (“you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil”).

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply ‘man up’ and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren’t very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, ‘Science’ is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It’s been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with ‘punctuated equilibrium’ if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it’s not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Troll: Kevin C.
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.
     
    Not entirely
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/05/jews-are-not-nihilists.html

    Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God's existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done.

    The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it.
     
    Natural and sexual selection.

    There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.
     
    That is testable. We can look at the differences in genetic code between related organisms. Bacteria are the easiest to test- what is the rate of change you expect versus the current theory?
    , @AaronB
    Achilles, that was a very perceptive comment.

    In retrospect, its easy to see N as basically about emotional appeal and a creature of his times -

    1) God is dead, metaphysics was a foolish dream, there is nothing but materialism.
    2) You now get to invent your own values out of thin air. All is relativism.
    3) But not really, you ought to prefer master morality and power.
    4) So there is an objective standard after all! Yay!
    5) This objective standard is called "Life" and "Power".
    6) But it isn't a metaphysical principle. Even if it functions exactly like one. Its completely different. You're an idiot if you don't see this.
    7) It isn't God. Even if it functions like the metaphysical basis for values like God did. Its completely different. Only a decadent modern weakling cannot see this.
    8) All life strives for power, it seems to me. So I decided to make life and power the basis for my values. But this isn't the "naturalistic" fallacy. Oh no. Not at all. You're probably too stupid to see this, because you're decadent.

    N really had emotional appeal to people who wanted religion and naturalism together, so it was agreed to consider the above "profound".

    Oh, and it isn't surprising that Jews liked N - N was an elitist materialist who worshiped power - this is basically Jewish metaphysics.

    , @HA
    ">Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense."

    Bingo. The left that loves Nietzsche regards him as a patron saint of existentialism, based on the two core axioms that both his philosophy and theirs share, which is: A) the universe is devoid of meaning and B) humans can nonetheless create meaning for themselves, somehow.

    Now, perhaps the humanity in question who are able to create all this meaning for themselves are the mundane "masses", as the left would prefer, or else as Nietzsche would have it, just the Ubermensch echelon , but even the latter are presumably fairly numerous in a world of billions of people. That being the case, how meaningless is the universe, really, if it allows for all this meaning-creation? Contrarily, if it is indeed as fundamentally devoid of meaning as they claim, how is any effort to create meaning not itself doomed from the outset?

    Now, I completely understand why people hate Christianity and why so many a century or so ago believed that some new rough beast deserved a welcome. But in hindsight, what's amazing is how much crazier all those new and improved out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire alternatives to Christianity turned out to be -- be they from Rousseau, from Bismarck, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Hitler -- or else that EleanorRoosevelt/JohnLennon/Obama/Merkel mush-blob of progressivist goodwill that seems to have taken the lead recently. Whatever credulity and wishful thinking is required to believe in virgin birth and resurrection pales in comparison to the wishful thinking and mental gymnastics that all the replacement Christianities regard as inviolable dogma.
    , @Veritatis
    Largely agree.

    "... and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so."

    Plain old pride, that pesky sin, from a stunted human being. And it is still selling like hot bread on a cold morning, as per Sailer dedicating 2 post to this 'super smart' 'stylish' 'thinker'. (Who by the way writes nothing like Wolfe, if Back to Blood is anything to go by.)

    Or was it just smart and timely click-bait for the Unz commentariat?
    , @HA
    "Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it."

    No, it's not a scientific failure -- it's an aesthetic one. If there are indeed countless many Everett universes, (filtered by some anthropic principle), then one can scientifically explain most anything around us, and perfectly validly.

    Admittedly, this is just an advanced version of putting an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters together so as to eventually recreate the works of Shakespeare, and some might therefore regard it as an unsatisfying cheat, but so be it. After all, if the initial goal is to reduce the universe to its most simplistic constituents, why let a little thing like banality stand in the way? It certainly shouldn't surprise anyone.

    , @daniel le mouche
    'Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. '

    Yes, I think that's about right, and it's where we're headed. I personally find every single western religion deplorable and completely false. I wish I could believe, though, and always have wished thus. Much is beautiful in Catholicism, perhaps in Islam too (I know very little of it but have seen some beautiful architecture). Judaism I find revolting. But between fanatical Muslims and fanatical Jews, the tame, believe nothing European is about to be snuffed. For your own sakes, at least believe in your people!
  19. @Sid
    Nietzsche was also an arch individualist, which contrasted with Fascism's collectivist ideology. As such, a lot of people who read Nietzsche at face value come away thinking that Nietzsche would NEVER endorse Fascism, because he was an individualist and they weren't!

    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, "What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?"

    The best autocracy is master-morality for the autocrat and slave-morality for everyone else.

    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, “What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?”

    Which Communist leader didn’t make that connection? Wasn’t that kind of the point all along? Mao apparently had loads of concubines. Castro as well. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    • Replies: @Sid
    I don't know if Mao read Nietzsche, but I know he read Friedrich Paulsen's "A System of Ethics," which helped him conclude that it was moral for him to use people are tools for whims.

    One thing I'll say is that history is full of cruel, greedy men, and they didn't get that way reading philosophy. Still, I can't help but think that the more amoral philosophers gave 20th century tyrants a treasure trove of arguments and lines of reasoning for getting what they wanted.

    Frederick and Catherine the Great were not soft, weak people, but the philosophy of their day helped them aspire to rule more fairly and justly. In contrast, 20th century dictators found their worst impulses validated and encouraged by the previous century's philosophy.
    , @Moshe
    That is not the ending of Animal Farm
  20. @Deso Dogg

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)
     
    Is he really, though? In my experience, at least, the only people who know about Francis Galton tend to be people (like myself) who think he was a very impressive polymath. I hear, for example, Madison Grant (or the paraphrasing of Grant's views in the Great Gatsby) mentioned by leftists as the ultimate Anglo-American eugenicist proto-Nazi much more often. (Of course I could well be mistaken here.)

    Grant is definitely a more obscure name. I hear about him about as often as Lothrop Stoddard. Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons. They have to tread a bit carefully with Galton because they don’t want any bad press rubbing off on Darwin, who’s very important to them. But that only goes so far.

    There are bigger names in racism, but probably not in “scientific racism,” which eugenics and psychometrics are by definition. Unless you have leftist or protected group status as counterbalance, like a Sanger.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons.
     
    They're certainly trying to, though. Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award. Then there's the recent spate of fiction meant to "correct" HPL's un-PC attitudes : Lovecraft Country, The Ballad of Black Tom, etc Jordan Peele's even going to turn Lovecraft Country into a TV series....
  21. @syonredux

    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read.
     
    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.Kant's not exactly fun, but he's at least trying to be clear.

    I find non phenomenology Hegel to be pretty enjoyable.

  22. @Lot
    Nietzsche's writing is a pleasure in small doses. But his books is a chore after the first few pages. They generally could be rewritten in one fifth the space without loss of content. He is also repetitive and deliberately obscure in a way that is disrespectful to his readers.

    Excellent description he also reused the same ideas a lot so if you read a couple of his books in succession it can be frustrating. Kierkegaard was the same way but he was a lot more profound a thinker than Nietzsche.

  23. Gay Nazi bodybuilder.

    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Donna Minkowitz is on the case.
  24. Lot says:
    @Deso Dogg

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)
     
    Is he really, though? In my experience, at least, the only people who know about Francis Galton tend to be people (like myself) who think he was a very impressive polymath. I hear, for example, Madison Grant (or the paraphrasing of Grant's views in the Great Gatsby) mentioned by leftists as the ultimate Anglo-American eugenicist proto-Nazi much more often. (Of course I could well be mistaken here.)

    I agree, Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard are much easier targets than Galton. They had law and history degrees and lacked Galton’s extreme intelligence or lasting contributions to science.

    Coincidentally, yesterday I read Stoddard’s gushy account of his “audiences” with Hitler and Mussolini and others he met in the Third Reich in 39 and 40. There were so many momentous events packed into that short period of time, and it has been fascinating to immerse myself in my recent pleasure reading into contemporary accounts.

  25. Nietzche really, really wanted to be Achilles. Unfortunately he ended up as a sickly Homer. Hence his philosophy really rejected the Classical World and everything that came from it especially Christianity, in favor of Homeric Heroic Warriorism.

    If Christianity is the fusion of Greek Humanism with Jewish Monotheism, Nietzche is that old bad dangerous “Blonde Beast” lurking about, the inner Achilles lusting for glory over anything like duty, honor, state, family, etc.

    What’s odd is how into the Ancient Greeks the 19th Century Germans really were, finding the Romans too tyrannical and later decadent to be a model (Arminius’s Revenge perhaps?) and idealizing the Classical Greek period from its actual roots.

    You might even argue that a lot of Germans like Nietzche really were not into being essentially Prussian Serfs, when it came down to it, and preferred their old city states that had been first consolidated by Napoleon and then disastrously rolled up by the Prussians. That a lot of the fad for the first City-Staters were by Germans forbidden to long after their own old ways, princes, customs, traditions, values that being a servant of the Prussian Empire did not really supplant in their hearts.

    And Western leaders ought to be concerned. The reaction by Muslims to the failure of their nations to offer anything worth either living or dying for: are the nations of Libya, Syria, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia anything to the people who live there? And their substitution for that lack by MOAR ISLAM and MOAR JIHAD are provoking a counter-reaction among non-elite Whites. What is there to live and die for in modern Britain? Running and hiding while picking your daughter’s brains and guts out of your hair? Being forbidden to even be angry at the immavader jihadis? The Blonde Beast is born again; not the least of which is the utter degradation to which the native born men are subjected to makes him preferable.

    The Reality Winners of the world are of course a different story.

  26. anon • Disclaimer says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton

    The wikipedia entry for Galton is remarkably positive.

    Perhaps it is his association with Darwin, who is worshiped by the left for the collateral damage his work inflicted on Christianity.

    I think academia would have liked him to just disappear, but his fingerprints were on everything.

    Check this out beginning on page 30. http://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Little_science_big_science_and_beyond.pdf

    This was published around the time as Kuen’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions — the most quoted book of the second half of the twentieth century. Ahead of its time with its hints that science is a social construct.

  27. For an easy to read German philosopher, try Schopenhauer.

    In many ways he anticipated sociobiology based on observation and reason.

    His concept of will as life
    should be useful in how we understand and develop artificial intelligence too.

    • Replies: @guest
    You can call Schopenhauer a lot of things, but easy to read? He's probably the philosopher I enjoy reading least amongst those I substantially agree with. He had the German Philosophical Literary Disease.
    , @Moshe
    Yes, Schopenhauer is good.

    I really enjoy reading old writers about things that are still relevant to us. Whether it is Shakespeare on the relationship between man and wife, or the prophets of the Bible on morality, or Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Mencken on women, etc.

    Some insights from an era outside of our own can be illuminating and lasciviously engrossing.
  28. Let’s see, if I do a Nietzsche post, I’ll only get 35 comments. On the other hand, they’ll all be 8,000 words long.

    • LOL: Seamus Padraig, James Richard, Dahlia
  29. @guest
    Grant is definitely a more obscure name. I hear about him about as often as Lothrop Stoddard. Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can't tear him down for obvious reasons. They have to tread a bit carefully with Galton because they don't want any bad press rubbing off on Darwin, who's very important to them. But that only goes so far.

    There are bigger names in racism, but probably not in "scientific racism," which eugenics and psychometrics are by definition. Unless you have leftist or protected group status as counterbalance, like a Sanger.

    Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons.

    They’re certainly trying to, though. Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award. Then there’s the recent spate of fiction meant to “correct” HPL’s un-PC attitudes : Lovecraft Country, The Ballad of Black Tom, etc Jordan Peele’s even going to turn Lovecraft Country into a TV series….

    • Replies: @guest
    I suppose I shouldn't say they can't tear Lovecraft down. Maybe they could if they tried hard enough. But they won't try that hard because they like him, too. More importantly, his philosophical, historical, and political writings are virtually unknown. You have to read pretty far in to the stories to pick up all the badthoughts.

    That's as far as the general public is concerned. I don't think regular horror readers care much about literary awards. In the world of publishing and High Literature they'll slap the "problematic" label on him and aim the Eye of Sauron in his direction, lest anyone take him too seriously. They let some people they consider Nazis stay in the canon, like Jack London, Ezra Pound, and D.H. Lawrence.
    , @SFG
    No literary people took Lovecraft seriously until the generation of humanities types reared on nerd culture started hitting the academy. Unfortunately that also meant they had to bring their politics into it. The computer nerds who loved him in the 80s and 90s didn't care if he was racist and, anyway, Cthulhu's hardly racist; he's going to eat everyone regardless of their color. It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate). Though I still think they'll win, or there will be right-wing and left-wing nerd culture, which is already starting to happen (compare Steven Universe and anime fandom).

    , @ATX Hipster

    Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award.
     
    The recent controversies surrounding literary awards such as WFA and the Hugo are pretty funny examples of O'Sullivan's Law.
    , @Anon
    "Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award."

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/reflections-on-the-h-p-lovecraft-award/
  30. @Lot
    Nietzsche's writing is a pleasure in small doses. But his books is a chore after the first few pages. They generally could be rewritten in one fifth the space without loss of content. He is also repetitive and deliberately obscure in a way that is disrespectful to his readers.

    Nietzsche’s writing is a pleasure in small doses. But his books is a chore after the first few pages.

    He’s a bit like Emerson in that regard. Of course, Emerson is a much more extreme case. I can only take him a paragraph at a time.

    Interesting to note that Nietzsche liked Emerson a lot; he said that reading him always cheered him up when he was depressed.

    • Replies: @guest
    It's not hard to see why, despite Emerson's lukewarm Christianity: they're both aphorists, both radical individualists (when it suited them), both obsessed with transcendence (whatever that is), and neither believed in truth.
  31. Would he have been an anti-Semite had he been born in the same year as Adolf Hitler?

    • Replies: @Moshe
    Nietzsche? Yiu've got to be kidding. I mean OBVIOUSLY circumstances can nake anybody anything but not only did Nietzsche despise the characteristics of gis race while admiring the newly cone-by characteristics of Jews but he was as opposed to fascistic groupthink as anyone could be. Unless of course he or someone he admired was the fuhrer. But the average Nazi? He would not be one of them nor would he be able to contain his food when he beheld one.
  32. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "(To be precise, however, Nietzsche’s objection to Christianity was not that some Christians had owned slaves, but that a lot of Christians had been slaves. Christianity, to Nietzsche, was a contemptible “slave morality.”)"

    Don't suppose it ever occurred to Nietzsche that while it's undoubtedly true that the leaders of the pagan religions from the Greco-Roman world which he seemed to hold in high regard may have indeed owned slaves, a lot of ordinary men/even slaves of classic antiquity worshipped the same gods as well. It's like, sure, everyone would like to focus on the top 1% (leaders; warriors; thinkers; etc), but what happens to the other 99%?

    Fact remains that Nietzsche's ideas found full acceptance first among Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged is pure homage to Zarathrustra) and the Nazis. If anything, its likely that Hitler used Nietzsche's ideas in such a way to fit his racial theories and give the government a "moral" or philosophical basis for existence.

    First among the Nazis, who started getting the message out 20 years or more after Nietzsche’s death and 30 years after he went mad? Or Rand, who didn’t reach a wide audience until she published the Fountainhead 50 years after his death? That’s just inaccurate.

    These people, Randians and Nazis, were influential but outside the Western mainstream. Nietzsche has been in and out of it at different points, but often enough is one of the Cool Kids. He didn’t get that way by being first picked up by Nazis and Objectivists. We probably wouldn’t know his name if he’d have sat on the shelf for that long.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But he was picked up by the Nazis and later Rand (as you rightly observed, I had it the other way round). Rand's fullest development of Nietzsche's ideas were in her classic tome, Atlas Shrugged, which was one of the biggest best sellers of the 20th century. Selling a whole bunch of books in the capitalist mainframe is about as Western mainstream as you can get.

    We wouldn't have known his name if it weren't for Hitler and Ayn Rand making it quite clear that they were using/borrowing his main themes regarding power, superman, etc.

    The Nazis are still remembered, and one still comes across the "Oh yeah, that Zarathrustra writer sowed the ideas for Hitler". Wonder why people still can make that connection? Doesnt really matter if they accurately represented the ideas, the point is, for the longest time, Nietzsche = Hitler was the prism thru which his ideas were viewed.

    Hitler knew the power of propaganda. Leni Riefenstal's masterpiece, the 1934 "Triumph of the Will", with its themes such as the 'Will to Power'; 'Superman', the ultimate leader that comes along and brings forth the dawn and clarity out from the darkness and confusion. Sorry, but clearly he was consciously channelling some of Nietzsche's ideas, or at least those that fit his purpose. The point is, he made use of his theories. And after all, to Hitler, Nietzsche was German and a recent literary intellectual who was useful to his regime.


    Martin Heidegger, Professor at Freiburg University, who also was a Nietzsche admirer, and one of the post-war's leaders of existential thought, was an avid Nazi party supporter, as were many of the college professors and well educated class of Germany during the 20's and 30's and they would've been well familiar with Nietzsche's ideas as well.

    Question for all: We automatically assume that Nietzsche, pre-madness period, would've rejected Hitler and his ultimate aims on running Germany. Since Nietzsche was an individual and one who couldn't have been pigeon holed into any set 'bad/good' paradigm regarding morality (at least publicly), who is to really say, outside of holding a seance and asking Friederick himself, if perhaps he wouldn't have endorsed Hitler for using of his ideas? Perhaps he would've asked to help define them more clearly for he regime.

    We really don't know one way or the other. In hindsight, we certainly HOPE that he wouldn't have wanted his ideas associated with Nazism (and its usage of Superman, will to power, the strong vs the weak, etc) but we really don't know. It may never be proven one way or the other.

    What we DO know, is that the Nazis consciously made use of his ideas (as did Rand) in their outlook, propaganda, etc. Hitler made that very clear, particularly in Triumph of the Will. Like it or not, these two, Ayn Rand and the Nazis consciously borrowed his themes and brought them into the mainstream. They certainly had enough reasons for believing they were accurately representing enough of his work that it would fit within their paradigms.

  33. @syonredux

    Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons.
     
    They're certainly trying to, though. Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award. Then there's the recent spate of fiction meant to "correct" HPL's un-PC attitudes : Lovecraft Country, The Ballad of Black Tom, etc Jordan Peele's even going to turn Lovecraft Country into a TV series....

    I suppose I shouldn’t say they can’t tear Lovecraft down. Maybe they could if they tried hard enough. But they won’t try that hard because they like him, too. More importantly, his philosophical, historical, and political writings are virtually unknown. You have to read pretty far in to the stories to pick up all the badthoughts.

    That’s as far as the general public is concerned. I don’t think regular horror readers care much about literary awards. In the world of publishing and High Literature they’ll slap the “problematic” label on him and aim the Eye of Sauron in his direction, lest anyone take him too seriously. They let some people they consider Nazis stay in the canon, like Jack London, Ezra Pound, and D.H. Lawrence.

  34. @syonredux

    Nietzsche’s writing is a pleasure in small doses. But his books is a chore after the first few pages.
     
    He's a bit like Emerson in that regard. Of course, Emerson is a much more extreme case. I can only take him a paragraph at a time.

    Interesting to note that Nietzsche liked Emerson a lot; he said that reading him always cheered him up when he was depressed.

    It’s not hard to see why, despite Emerson’s lukewarm Christianity: they’re both aphorists, both radical individualists (when it suited them), both obsessed with transcendence (whatever that is), and neither believed in truth.

  35. @Whitehall
    For an easy to read German philosopher, try Schopenhauer.

    In many ways he anticipated sociobiology based on observation and reason.

    His concept of will as life
    should be useful in how we understand and develop artificial intelligence too.

    You can call Schopenhauer a lot of things, but easy to read? He’s probably the philosopher I enjoy reading least amongst those I substantially agree with. He had the German Philosophical Literary Disease.

  36. Anonymous [AKA "Mahti-Pate"] says:

    Off Topic: A video of what real drowning looks like: link to a finnish newspaper: http://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/artikkeli/video-viisivuotias-kamppaili-hengestaan-helsinkilaisessa-uimahallissa-kukaan-ei-huomannut-hukkuvaa-lasta/6461070

    a five year old boy is drowning in a swimming pool next to numerous people and nobody notices while literally touching him. Fortunately the boy who was lifeless at the end was saved. Very disturbing to watch, but also important to see what it really looks like. Not sure if still worth it . It’s the most horrifying thing I’ve ever seen.

    • Replies: @Marat Said
    My mind immediately went to Stevie Smith's:

    I was much too far out all my life
    and not waving, but drowning
  37. Sid says:
    @Anonym
    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, “What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?”

    Which Communist leader didn't make that connection? Wasn't that kind of the point all along? Mao apparently had loads of concubines. Castro as well. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    https://youtu.be/BbLdAWef9C8

    I don’t know if Mao read Nietzsche, but I know he read Friedrich Paulsen’s “A System of Ethics,” which helped him conclude that it was moral for him to use people are tools for whims.

    One thing I’ll say is that history is full of cruel, greedy men, and they didn’t get that way reading philosophy. Still, I can’t help but think that the more amoral philosophers gave 20th century tyrants a treasure trove of arguments and lines of reasoning for getting what they wanted.

    Frederick and Catherine the Great were not soft, weak people, but the philosophy of their day helped them aspire to rule more fairly and justly. In contrast, 20th century dictators found their worst impulses validated and encouraged by the previous century’s philosophy.

  38. eah says:

    despite

    Nietzsche died in 1900 — why did he have to be “rehabilitated” due to events that happened decades after his death?

    Here’s what Wikipedia says about Kathy BoudinKathy Boudin (born May 19, 1943) was a member of the far-left radical group the Weather Underground who was convicted of felony murder for her role in the Brink’s robbery of 1981 that resulted in the killing of two Nyack police officers, killing one security guard and seriously wounding one security guard.[1] She was released from prison in 2003 and is now an adjunct professor at Columbia University.

    Makes you think.

  39. OT: I would like to highlight the firing of Katie McHugh by the heretofore conservative news outlet breitbart.com.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/katie-mchugh-breitbart-writer-fired-over-muslims-t/

    Her crime? Speaking the truth.

    https://twitter.com/k_mcq/status/871138163728809984

    • Replies: @AM
    Even Breitbart is getting infected with progressivism. It really is like mind disease. They've recently run a series of articles about how we're all supposed to feel sorry for the valedictorian at a Christian school who got herself knocked up because she didn't kill the baby.

    Frankly, keeping the baby alive was the bare minimum of responsibility in that situation. The school did the right thing, but there's Breitbart pushing a "conservative" agenda by defending the girl, who had no intention of letting the child up for adoption or marrying the father.

    , @Venator
    Conquest's Second Law, updated: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."

    Why? Because it's an organization and organizations attract intellectuals.
  40. I feel like i’m reading Sokal Award entries.

  41. Friedrich Nietzsche or: The Loner and Ill Pensioner and Druggie as the Bourgoise Anarchist Overman

    I was struck by how literal is Nietzsche’s insistent that the masters are healthy and active and the slaves are sickly and listless. This is not a psychological metaphor for Nietzsche.

    For real though this idea isn’t either. Neitzsche rather dreams things up. He worked for ten years as a professor (on a very light scedule…), then asked Basel university for a pension – which he got – – . From his 35th year on, he lived the life of a pensioner. He was then – 1879ff – an ill and often times depressed man and – a druggie. Opium. –

    – That’s one reason for his high flights above the boundaries of civilization. Most of his writing is dream-like and semi-serious (ironic, witty, sarcastic). That’s why he’ll never disappear. He appeals to the state of mind, wich lies in between the grown up and the child (Tolkien and Nietzsche therefor is no bad connection, as isn’t Dylan and Nietzsche). Nietzsche is puberty in the disguise of the genius. He’s one of the sweetest pipers at the entrance-gate to the responsible grown ups dull life of faith, responsibility and obedience.
    Freud got this and did write the grown-ups version of Nieztsches story. Civilization and it’s Dicontents was the cosest to Nietzsche he got.

    Being a classic means: To appeal to everybody: To the left a n d to the right, too.

    Ironically: The closest Nietzsche’s ideas came to Hitler’s was his anarchism. I think Thimothy Snyder is right in “Bloodlands” when he points out, that the SS’s most desatrous power was, to destroy nation-states (Poland and the Baltics, especially) in order to establish there the paradox of an extremely destructive anarchist regime. Snyder can show, that the mass-killings of jews did only take place in those regions, where the nation-state was out of order (Snyder might indirectly be on Irving Berlin’s Nation-state-track here).

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Irving Berlin sounds better, but Irving Berlin is the real defender of the Nation state, ehe.
    , @guest
    The Nazis only half-destroyed Poland. The Baltic states had been gobbled up by the Soviets as part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

    Did the Final Solution take place where there was no nation-state, or was that merely territory that had been conquered by the less-honest allies? Call it the Soviet Coincidence.

  42. Nietzsche’s objection to Christianity was not that some Christians had owned slaves, but that a lot of Christians had been slaves

    I think more that Christians felt guilt that some Christians had owned slaves. Making the slave owner evil and the enslaved virtuous is an in inverted morality to him.

    Blacks today are treated like a priviledged class today because they are descended from slaves. This is the opposite mentality of an aristocrat being good because he is descended from great men and conquereros.

  43. @Dieter Kief
    Friedrich Nietzsche or: The Loner and Ill Pensioner and Druggie as the Bourgoise Anarchist Overman

    I was struck by how literal is Nietzsche’s insistent that the masters are healthy and active and the slaves are sickly and listless. This is not a psychological metaphor for Nietzsche.
     
    For real though this idea isn't either. Neitzsche rather dreams things up. He worked for ten years as a professor (on a very light scedule...), then asked Basel university for a pension - which he got - - . From his 35th year on, he lived the life of a pensioner. He was then - 1879ff - an ill and often times depressed man and - a druggie. Opium. -

    - That's one reason for his high flights above the boundaries of civilization. Most of his writing is dream-like and semi-serious (ironic, witty, sarcastic). That's why he'll never disappear. He appeals to the state of mind, wich lies in between the grown up and the child (Tolkien and Nietzsche therefor is no bad connection, as isn't Dylan and Nietzsche). Nietzsche is puberty in the disguise of the genius. He's one of the sweetest pipers at the entrance-gate to the responsible grown ups dull life of faith, responsibility and obedience.
    Freud got this and did write the grown-ups version of Nieztsches story. Civilization and it's Dicontents was the cosest to Nietzsche he got.

    Being a classic means: To appeal to everybody: To the left a n d to the right, too.

    Ironically: The closest Nietzsche's ideas came to Hitler's was his anarchism. I think Thimothy Snyder is right in "Bloodlands" when he points out, that the SS's most desatrous power was, to destroy nation-states (Poland and the Baltics, especially) in order to establish there the paradox of an extremely destructive anarchist regime. Snyder can show, that the mass-killings of jews did only take place in those regions, where the nation-state was out of order (Snyder might indirectly be on Irving Berlin's Nation-state-track here).

    Irving Berlin sounds better, but Irving Berlin is the real defender of the Nation state, ehe.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    It's Issiah Berlin who argued for the nation-state while the rest of liberal Europe was in an internationalization-frenzy. I had the wrong Berlin in my initial No. 41 post and tried somewhat unsucessfully to correct in No. 43. The warm Föhn-wind from the Swiss Alps does that to me.
  44. @Dieter Kief
    Friedrich Nietzsche or: The Loner and Ill Pensioner and Druggie as the Bourgoise Anarchist Overman

    I was struck by how literal is Nietzsche’s insistent that the masters are healthy and active and the slaves are sickly and listless. This is not a psychological metaphor for Nietzsche.
     
    For real though this idea isn't either. Neitzsche rather dreams things up. He worked for ten years as a professor (on a very light scedule...), then asked Basel university for a pension - which he got - - . From his 35th year on, he lived the life of a pensioner. He was then - 1879ff - an ill and often times depressed man and - a druggie. Opium. -

    - That's one reason for his high flights above the boundaries of civilization. Most of his writing is dream-like and semi-serious (ironic, witty, sarcastic). That's why he'll never disappear. He appeals to the state of mind, wich lies in between the grown up and the child (Tolkien and Nietzsche therefor is no bad connection, as isn't Dylan and Nietzsche). Nietzsche is puberty in the disguise of the genius. He's one of the sweetest pipers at the entrance-gate to the responsible grown ups dull life of faith, responsibility and obedience.
    Freud got this and did write the grown-ups version of Nieztsches story. Civilization and it's Dicontents was the cosest to Nietzsche he got.

    Being a classic means: To appeal to everybody: To the left a n d to the right, too.

    Ironically: The closest Nietzsche's ideas came to Hitler's was his anarchism. I think Thimothy Snyder is right in "Bloodlands" when he points out, that the SS's most desatrous power was, to destroy nation-states (Poland and the Baltics, especially) in order to establish there the paradox of an extremely destructive anarchist regime. Snyder can show, that the mass-killings of jews did only take place in those regions, where the nation-state was out of order (Snyder might indirectly be on Irving Berlin's Nation-state-track here).

    The Nazis only half-destroyed Poland. The Baltic states had been gobbled up by the Soviets as part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

    Did the Final Solution take place where there was no nation-state, or was that merely territory that had been conquered by the less-honest allies? Call it the Soviet Coincidence.

  45. … much loved by the TLS … must be okay … what’s all this Sorrento business ? …

  46. • Replies: @AM
    It's not off topic. If you go to your MD, listless and depressed, and they won't tell you to pray or go to church or stop with the sugar or shut off the TV and get outdoors but give a referral for more drugs and pointless chatting what did we think we're going to get? After a while the line between legal and illegal is just a formality.

    It sounds like Nietzsche never came up with a solution, but he at least understood the consequences of "God is dead and we have killed him"
    , @Travis
    so sad...Lost my uncle 8 days ago to opiate OD, a childhood friend in 2015, a cousin in 2014 , and another cousin in 2003.
    , @Dieter Kief
    Not quite of-topic, since Nietzsche took lots of opium in the 1880ies. Just have a look at the Genealogy of Morals.
    , @Gross Terry
    Maximum debt, heroin, suicide is the most rational lifestyle for the utilitarian. I always laugh when I read sci fi or less wrong nerds pondering the social and politications implications of a future in which getting "wireheaded" is possible, when that option is already quite open to people
    , @Moshe
    Wait, what??

    Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50? Can that be right?

    What drugs, what race, what gender??
    , @eah
    https://twitter.com/IWillRedPillYou/status/873630301020442624
  47. On the other hand, Nietzsche’s preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values sound like a John Milius screenplay or an alt-right Tweet: “Steppe barbarian. Nationalist, Fascist, Nudist Bodybuilder! Purification of world. Revolt of the damned. Destruction of the cities!”

    There is nothing preposterous about such values. What is the difference between the West of today, on the verge of collapse and annihilation, and the West of yesterday, the virile conqueror of the world and self assured linchpin of the scientific revolution? It is not the baseline level of competence that has changed, but the transition from “preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values” to “slave morality” values.

    Are you implying, Steve, that if given the choice between the two polarities, you would choose the “slave morality” and extinction over the “preposterous” will to power values? If so, wherefore this blog? You should be a big fan of the NYT editorial page as it is a perfect encapsulation of the “slave morality” and as far as conceptually possible from “preposterous” will to power as you can get.

    (Of course, the NYT editorial page is actually one of the most brilliantly executed manifestations of “the will to power” we’ve had the privilege to witness in human history, when you think about “who” writes it to influence “whom”, but that’s too meta for the point I was trying to make.)

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    YOU MUST SUBMIT.
    , @Moshe
    I share your like for the idea but I fear it is utter bullshit, both as actually enjoyable for anyone but psycopaths as well as having any long-term actual (rather than imaginary) historical context outside of inherited royalty and slave owning.

    I do agree however that (Trump and select others aside) the Ubermentschen are pretending to be Untermentschen to an impressive, and imitation-worthy respect.
  48. Nietzsche’s rehabilitation by the Left was already an accomplished fact 30 years ago when Allan Bloom discussed the phenomenon in “The Closing of the American Mind.” Although Bloom’s discussion of the fate of the academy is largely remembered today for its fogeyish critique of Rock and Roll, his analysis of academic intellectual trends is largely accurate and his predictions are often spot on.

    As Bloom points out, the academic Left largely abandoned Marxian economic analysis in the 1960s in favor of trekking along roads laid down by Nietzsche. They’ve been going full bore ever since. This is part of the reason why the collapse of the Soviet Union meant exactly nothing to academics – none of them are doctrinaire Marxists anymore, and the ones who bother “identifying” as such do so for shock value (or out of pure ignorance, which is not in short supply in the academy these days).

    There are many reasons for this and they’re complex and interesting to investigate for those so inclined. Since iSteve readers trend toward numbers guys and hopeless autistics I imagine few are going to be inclined this way. For the sake of demonstration, I will point out a singularly unhelpful approach taken by Mr. Achilles above. He writes the following:

    “Nietzsche is rubbish. It’s just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world (“you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil”).

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.”

    Of course, Nietzsche himself would agree completely about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. He himself argues that men who grow up in a world informed by science are incapable by and large of believing in revelations from God. We are too aware of the history of texts and textual transmission, the facts of human love for power, the realities of manipulation, and the all-too-human qualities which anyone can see in purportedly divine texts to believe in divine revelation with the simplicity of a first century Christian. The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore? Our society relies on revelation at multiple levels and in ways we are just beginning to understand. To remove that underpinning is to expose the whole edifice to problems and contradictions it may be unable to survive. On some level, as Nietzsche says, we must make up some new gods to support the structure – but men do not bow down to purely human idols. Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God because no one would obey him otherwise. So, how do we create something that has the power of a deity to command respect and obedience and belief? This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as “rubbish” seems unworthy of serious men.

    To return to the Left and Nietzsche: much of the utopian nonsense of modern Leftism derives from a Nietzsche-inspired vision of a socially constructed future utopia (rather than a Marxist vision of a classless society). The more you explore leftist thought the more Nietzschean elements you find in it. Unfortunately, intellectual influences aren’t like chemistry, where elements can be distinguished within a compound; it works more like a stew, where you can identify certain flavors but can’t isolate them from the mix anymore.

    As for Bloom’s early observation on this phenomenon, the mind which was closing in 1987 is in 2017 completely shut: campus protests of the last two years demonstrate this to perfection. At least the kids’ minds will be full of safe spaces!

    • Replies: @Achilles

    This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as “rubbish” seems unworthy of serious men.
     
    Nietzschean atheistic existentialism is a dead end substantively, but yes, to your point certainly we should take the effects of Nietzschean thinking seriously.

    But let's go back to Kant, which was the source of the problem, lying in an unproven assertion on his part.

    Before Nietzsche with his melodramatic mournfulness declared God dead, Kant had placed God beyond the phenonemal realm, into the noumenal realm as he defined it where we can have no sense or perception of God.

    But the notion that we can have no sense or perception of God was simply an assertion. It was not proven by Kant. People who liked the assertion ran with it, and treated it as if it were some proven principle of science.

    Kant's assertion may agree with your own subjective experience. You may not perceive a connection to God. People in your own circles of contacts may not. But that does not mean your neighbor does not. Or that hundreds of millions of people do not or that hundreds of millions of people in the past did not perceive a connection to God that is or was in fact reality.

    To take an analogy, you may be colorblind. Perhaps other people whose opinions you respect are also colorblind. All of you collectively may come to the conclusion that humans do not perceive color. It may seem a reasonable and logical conclusion to you. But it would not be correct.

    You say, "Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God." You claim to know this was a pretension on the part of Moses. How do you know this? Were you there? Were you standing next to Moses and saying to Moses, "Ah, I see the problem. There is a gas vent in the ground here right behind this bush and the sun's rays have sparked a bit of tinder causing a natural flare, giving the appearance of a burning bush?"

    Notwithstanding the neat distinction by Kant between noumenal and phenomenal, we don't even really know the extent to which and how we perceive phenomena. What we suppose is in the noumenal realm may in reality be in the phenomenal realm.

    Is there a way for information to be communicated directly into our consciousness other than through our eyes, ears and other conventionally-recognized senses? This cannot be, or at least has not been, excluded scientifically. Relativity was a very clever insight on Einstein's part. Perhaps some future clever thinker and scientist will conceive a scientific approach to detecting such activity. Would Kant have said this is impossible?

    To return to Neitzsche, he was not the first to identify the problem. His claimed central insight had already been recorded 3,000 years earlier: "Where there is no vision the people perish," wrote the writer of Proverbs 29:18. The word "vision" here refers to divine revelation.

    If atheistic existentialists had any sense of enlightened self-interest, they would ally with "Crusader Christians" as some of them call us to reestablish and defend the foundations of Western Civilization.

    In truth, it was not the pre-Christian Roman Empire that provided the foundation of what became Western Civilization at its stunningly glorious height. The Roman Empire provided the architecture, as it were. As it expanded beyond its particular tribal origin and gods, the pre-Christian Roman Republic and then Empire evolved into little more than a pirate band writ large, running a kind of ponzi scheme of conquest that always required great amounts of new agricultural land and slaves or conquered nations to convert into giant tax farms in order to pay and maintain its forces of conquest and energize and supply its metropolis and outposts.

    Beyond the initial Roman Empire-derived structure, the moral content of Western Civilization was supplied by Christianity. One of the distinguishing features of Christianity is that proselytization must be by peaceful preaching (yes, sometimes honored in the breach by those claiming its name).

    This is what gave room for so much tolerance in Western society and modeled scientific debate and progress. Those who do not respond to proselytization are not infidels who must be put to the sword or enslaved, as in Islam. But when those tolerated become the intolerant and turn their guns on the foundation in order to destroy it, the intolerant must no longer be tolerated lest the foundations be destroyed.
    , @James Richard

    The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore?
     
    And Utilitarianism which fully informs almost all liberal Enlightenment thinking about purpose and morals and which is universally relied upon as the argument of last resort by every faction in all respectable mainstream political discussion is weak tea compared to Nietzsche's unsentimental and icy cold analysis of our godless situation.

    As for all the Sturm und Drang surrounding Zarathustra I much prefer The Birth of Tragedy which should be required reading in high school as it is as good an introduction to the core forces alive in Western Civilization as ever written.
    , @guest
    Nietzsche was not the first to confront that problem, nor is his solution in the top million answers.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    I agree with the analysis of Nietzsche; not with the assumption Moses was lying!

    You're right that revelation is the foundation of any worldview. All people live by a vision of one sort or another.
  49. @syonredux

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).
     
    Nietzsche once noted that his prose style was strongly influenced by that modern invention, the typewriter. He felt that typing simplified his sentences, made him less prone to the verbosity for which German philosophers are notorious.

    Perhaps you mean “less prone to, less given to, less vulnerable to the weakness for verbosity, wordiness, and sesquipedalianism for which German philosophers notorious are”.

    They certainly infected American academics, didn’t they?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Perhaps you mean “less prone to, less given to, less vulnerable to the weakness for verbosity, wordiness, and sesquipedalianism for which German philosophers notorious are”.

    They certainly infected American academics, didn’t they?
     
    Indeed.....Although, nowadays the bad prose virus comes from France: Lacan, Derrida, etc. Reading those fellows, it's hard to believe that French lit used to be famous for its lucidity....
  50. @yaqub the mad scientist
    Good points. Some other reasons for his popularity:

    He was no anti-Semite. His last books make that pretty clear.

    He's damn funny when he wants to be. His aphorisms really can bring out the LOL's.

    He brought about some compelling rethinkings of the Classical era.

    Unlike Derrida's sludge, Nietzsche's deconstruction- which he invented- is concise and says a lot with a little.

    Kauffman did a lot to make him accessible.

    His cranky stuff is almost endearing. You really get the portrait of a man thinking-a literary shading that makes his writing more human.

    I think the whole macho will-to-power thing really appeals to 15-year-old boys, especially if they don’t read the whole thing. There’s a reason superheroes never die.

  51. SFG says:
    @syonredux

    Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons.
     
    They're certainly trying to, though. Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award. Then there's the recent spate of fiction meant to "correct" HPL's un-PC attitudes : Lovecraft Country, The Ballad of Black Tom, etc Jordan Peele's even going to turn Lovecraft Country into a TV series....

    No literary people took Lovecraft seriously until the generation of humanities types reared on nerd culture started hitting the academy. Unfortunately that also meant they had to bring their politics into it. The computer nerds who loved him in the 80s and 90s didn’t care if he was racist and, anyway, Cthulhu’s hardly racist; he’s going to eat everyone regardless of their color. It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate). Though I still think they’ll win, or there will be right-wing and left-wing nerd culture, which is already starting to happen (compare Steven Universe and anime fandom).

    • Replies: @syonredux

    It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.
     
    It's kinda funny. I've had conversations with a few SJW Lovecraft-Haters.They are quite adamant about racism playing a central role in his stories. Most of them, however, seem to be quite unfamiliar with his work. For example, take Victor LaValle, the author of "The Ballad of Black Tom." When asked by NPR to discuss racism in HPL's fiction, he made the following reply:

    Like, for instance, the story where he has a cat named [expletive] Man, and he calls him that 19 times in this really short story and takes great pleasure in talking about kicking this cat and all this stuff. And then he has other things other things - he has a poem that's pretty famous. He has a longer story - "The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward" -that gets into some ugly stuff
     
    The poem is "On The Creation of Ni[*****], and it was never published during HPL's lifetime. The cat named " [expletive] Man" comes from "The Rats in the Walls." But Mr LaValle's recollection of the role played by the cat in the story is quite incorrect. The cat is never abused in the tale. Perhaps Mr LaValle was confusing "Rats" with Poe's "The Black Cat?"And naming animals after the "N-Word" was far from uncommon during the first half of the 20th century (e.g, the dog called Ni**** in the British film The Dam Busters). As for the "ugly stuff" in The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward, I don't know what he's talking about. Non-White characters play a very peripheral role in the novel, and, when bad things happen to them, it is due to the machinations of the book's villain, the thoroughly Anglo-Saxon Joseph Curwen.
    , @guest
    It wasn't just his private letters. He wrote essays, and was a critic and journalist. You can't much find his badthink in the stories, except by suggestion, but you can find it in other published works.
    , @Abe

    Cthulhu’s hardly racist; he’s going to eat everyone regardless of their color.
     
    One retrospectively-telling sign of how our culture came to be as cucked as it is was when shock-rocker Marilyn Manson (love his comeback, BTW, in his new "Lady Gaga" guise) all the way back in the 90's sang: "Ain't no time to discriminate / Hate every [email protected]@@@er in you way!"

    'So, yes, as you can plainly see I'm a gender-bendin' anti-Christ superstar who roasts babies alive and eats their skin as crackling. But, oh God, no- I'm not racist or anything like that. Whatever gave you that idea? The you could even imagine something like that of me! Oh God, I think I'm going to be sick...'

    , @Abe

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate).
     
    We need a clever term for this pronto! One of my old classmate fake Facebook friends once posted some crap about LEGO being disrespectful to womyn. Something about how girls like to build trucks and spaceships just like boys do and that having a separate product line (LEGO FRIENDS) for the XX chromosome set was demeaning or something. There are maybe like 9 women in this country who like LEGO's past the age of 10, and I'm married to one of them. There are way more who pretend to like LEGO's so they can be be part of a male-skewed social scene where they are guaranteed to be the center of attention, and a substantial subset of those get into it knowing full-well there is going to be a lot more rewarding mainstream attention (and perhaps money) the moment they turn on their erstwhile shy, Fedora-clad admirers and denounce them to SLATE/SALON for their 'misogyny', 'toxic bro-itude', and general 'creepiness'.

    The race version of this works almost exactly the same way, except the black guy who likes STAR TREK or GAME OF THRONES or creative anachronism or whatever, retells how awful it was having everyone want him to be their new black best friend, or that the Lovecraft or Tolkien books they'd been reading with seeming pleasure all these years was really a burning hell of non-stop micro and macro-agressions that felt like a series of punches to the gut.

    So what should we call this? Nerd milking? Or maybe these intrudes are really Trojan Dorks?

  52. OT – did anybody notice that Kevin Drum at Mother Jones just admitted that significiant racial differences in IQ are theoretically possible?

    This research can be easily misused, but it can also be properly used. It’s still way too early for it to point toward any conclusions about group differences in cognitive abilities, but in a few years it will start to provide meaningful real-world results. This doesn’t bother me too much since I think the research will show either zero or minuscule differences between racial groups. But it might not. You never know with science.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Sounds like Kevin is whistling past the graveyard where his misconceptions are about to be buried. I wish I could think of a witty idea of what that tune might be.( It's the end of the world as we know it..... But I feel fine ?) Maybe somebody here can come up with a better one.
    Apparently Kevin didn't notice that analysis of SAT scores broken down by race and family income that effectively buried the hypothesis that differences in performance between races are purely environmental with no genetic component.
    , @res
    Here's the link: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/the-intelligence-wars-are-likely-to-heat-up-again-soon/

    That looks like a response to the Sniekers et al. (2017) paper. James Thompson has a post about that paper (and Davide Piffer's related work) at https://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/

    Also, nothing in this work suggests there are genetic difference in intelligence when comparing people of different ancestries.
     
    Well, except that the SNPs discovered appear to have different frequencies in different races. See Davide Piffer's work.

    If anything, it suggests that the genetics that give rise to IQ are more subtle and intricate than we can ever really understand
     
    When all else fails there is always FUD!

    The comments are oddly disconnected from the article. They look like they are for a completely different article. Multiple comments confirm this. Interesting.

    The linked Vox article was actually decent (with the usual goodthinker style caveats) with extended quotes from the paper's senior author Danielle Posthuma: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/6/15739590/genome-wide-studies
    It looks like she will be the one engaging publicly about the Sniekers paper. Also see Dr. Thompson's most recent blog post: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/comments-on-piffer-from-prof-posthuma/

    It is interesting to contrast Drum's statement last month with your quote from the current article.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/charles-murray-still-convinced-whites-are-smarter-blacks/

    Maybe eventually Murray will find his long-sought gene complexes for cognitive ability, and will be able to show that there really is a genetic difference between blacks and whites. But I doubt it. The evidence just doesn’t point in that direction. Maybe in ten or twenty years we’ll know for sure.
     
  53. @guest
    His anti-semitism or lackthereof is neither here nor there regarding Nietzsche's popularity. Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Just recently, they started publicizing the fact that Mencken was anti-semitic. Not sure why, but he wasn't unpersoned as a result. He's still semi-respectable, because he's useful against Christianity and the booboosie. Martin Luther is a name you can bring up in polite conversation, though not far back people were writing books tracing the Holocaust back to him. Wagner is always coming in and out of acceptability.

    They're always holding back, pushing forward, taking away and putting back again the stigmata of anti-semitism at their convenience. It hardly matters whether Nietzsche really was anti-semitic or not, either. Because they could just say he was, and what's the difference? It worked for a damn long time, if only by implication.

    Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Yeah, yeah, I do. The point is that “the Jewish question” was so front and center with him from the go. We’re not talking TS Eliot here.

  54. In other hands, seems he was all-praise about islam…

  55. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. I believe he is misunderstood. Nietzsche is famous for declaring that “God is dead”. God being dead, many foresaw him as formulating the political and social ideology of the satanic Will to Power that led to Hitler, Stalin, and other monsters of the 20th Century. My take is that Nietzsche was not advocating the Will to Power, he was predicting it as a natural outcome of the Zeitgeist of the age.

    Nietzsche inculcated the emergent values of late 19th Century industrialization when humankind (as least in Europe) thought they were escaping from Nature and God to build a new reality based on individual human ingenuity, effort, and will. What he foresaw was that, without God and Nature, humans had also escaped the traditional paradigms of Good and Evil. Each of us has the potential to be divine, as it were, and remake the world in our own image if we have the will to pull it off … regardless of means and consequences.

    My take is that Nietzsche was insane. He was a character out of Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” who ate of the Apple promising knowledge of Good and Evil and found himself evil to the core. I leave it an open question whether Nietzsche had a predisposition to insanity or whether sacrificing himself to the Zeitgeist of the age drove him insane.

    What Nietzsche predicted is raising its ugly head again, albeit not as fascism, National Socialism, or Communism. Western Civilization is again eating of the Apple promising knowledge of Good and Evil in the pursuit of a New World Order of human design and finding itself evil to the core … although under the new monikers of Cultural Marxism, feminism, and racial, cultural, and religious diversity.

  56. @Deso Dogg

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)
     
    Is he really, though? In my experience, at least, the only people who know about Francis Galton tend to be people (like myself) who think he was a very impressive polymath. I hear, for example, Madison Grant (or the paraphrasing of Grant's views in the Great Gatsby) mentioned by leftists as the ultimate Anglo-American eugenicist proto-Nazi much more often. (Of course I could well be mistaken here.)

    Generally, yes he is. I flicked through one of those ‘Introducing…’ picture books for Genetics some time ago and on page 5 or so they have a picture of Galton dressed in a Nazi uniform saying ‘My cousin is a genius, therefore I must be a genius!’. The purpose of the page is to illustrate how less discerning people (compared to glorious St. Darwin) can misinterpret St. Darwin’s ideas. That pretty much sums up the mainstream image of Galton as far as I know.

    Otherwise Galton is usually mentioned as ‘father of Eugenics’ (which, as we know a priori, is bad) which is usually a preface to a description of how evil whites used this idea in the early 20th century (cue lots of images of WWII artillery firing) before it became uncool (er, I mean ‘pseudoscience’). Again, this discussion usually involves the qualifier ‘this is not what Darwin wanted/believed/stood for!’, etc. Discussion of whether it’s what Galton wanted, for that matter, is not usually included.

    There have already been a couple of student rumblings at UCL calling for it to memory hole it’s association with Galton (in line with similar student movements worldwide calling for the removal/renaming of ‘white legacy’ buildings), eg http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-does-a-university-deal-with-its-historic-legacy-of-eugenics

  57. One of the most radical anti-Semites there has ever been, but rather clever about it.

    (Walter Kaufmann has been a baleful influence on the understanding of Nietzsche in the Anglosphere.)

  58. Finally…. Steve-O writing about Nietzsche. This is so great!

    Over the past few years, I’ve read “Beyond Good & Evil”, “The Gay Science” and “Thus Spake Zarathustra”. A couple of observations;

    1. Nietzsche often serves as a blank slate for mid-wits or anyone with an agenda. He spends a lot of time arguing multiple sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion… if he comes to a conclusion at all. The whole “God is dead” quote is more often than not taken out of context. Freddy never wrote a sentence that short. If you don’t read the whole book, it’s easy to use a short quote to justify virtually anything.

    2. After reading Nietzsche, I can’t take Eastern philosophy seriously. His “Aphorisms” chapter in “Beyond Good & Evil” is the sort of condensed wisdom that I’ve always sought from fortune cookies.

    3.a. Above all Nietzsche is a prophet. His criticisms of Christianity aren’t really theological or metaphysical in nature. He foretold the descent of Christianity into “Churchianty”, which enshrines radical egalitarianism above the Word of God. I don’t have my Kindle on me to quote the highlighted passages, but in “Beyond Good & Evil” he blasts asceticism, noting that religious ascetics eventually even deny themselves God. What is liberal/progressive SJW-ism if not godless Puritanism?

    3.b. See that soy-addled, androgynous, pansexual, noodle armed, uptalking pajama boy over there? Zarathustra, himself, is metaphorically grabbing you by the lapels and shouting into your face, “BEHOLD THE LAST MAN!!!!”

    • Replies: @AM
    "3.a. Above all Nietzsche is a prophet. His criticisms of Christianity aren’t really theological or metaphysical in nature. He foretold the descent of Christianity into “Churchianty”, which enshrines radical egalitarianism above the Word of God. I don’t have my Kindle on me to quote the highlighted passages, but in “Beyond Good & Evil” he blasts asceticism, noting that religious ascetics eventually even deny themselves God. What is liberal/progressive SJW-ism if not godless Puritanism?"

    I'm putting this up as repeat. The whole comment is right on the money. :)

    This is Nietzche's value, right here, as prophet. Even the Catholics, as a mass, have become godless Puritians to an extent. Churchians are everywhere in Christianity right now, to the point that the difference between a liberal Catholic and an SJW is disagreement over 1 issue and how they spend Sunday morning.

    So many people in the alt-right intellectually understand the critical role of Christianity in Western Civilization - and between the misinformation and the uncompelling (or repelling) nature of churchian culture they can't bring themselves to the church door. (And I'll add personal laziness, here, too.)

    We need to overcome the barrier and get *everyone* interested in saving the West to somehow get themselves to open that church door in an honest way. Nietzche is going to get us where he got himself, a comfy last few years of life before an early death. In many ways, his life is the recent history of the West in miniature.

    Because what the Neitzche failed to notice about Christianity was that slaves eventually found the courage to be marytrs, saints, and build cathedrals,and find out more about the world around them then anyone dared to dream was possible.

  59. @syonredux

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).
     
    Nietzsche once noted that his prose style was strongly influenced by that modern invention, the typewriter. He felt that typing simplified his sentences, made him less prone to the verbosity for which German philosophers are notorious.

    “He felt that typing simplified his sentences, made him less prone to the verbosity for which German philosophers are notorious.”

    A few months into my philosophy requirement in college, our professor apologized to us: “Next semester, we’ll be reading [in translation] Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, among others. I’m afraid you’re going to develop a passionate hatred of German-speakers“.

    “But, at least, Nietzsche wasn’t an essentialist. That would be racist!”

    At the end of said philosophy class, one firm conclusion particularly lodged in my mind: “So, the only really logical and consistent positions are with Aristotle or with Nietzsche“. Everything in between tends to collapse back to one or the other eventually.

  60. In recent decades, the reputation of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has been largely rehabilitated despite the unfortunate events of 1933-1945.

    I think it’s quite unfair to associate Nietzsche with the “events of 1933-1945” as so many have done. While it’s certainly true that Nietzsche advocated the abolition of Christian morality with regard to the treatment of the untermenschen, and had no qualms about the extreme measures that would be necessary (“the weak and the botched shall perish, and we shall help them to it”) it’s quite doubtful that Nietzsche would have seen National Socialism — a working-class, mass movement — as the rightful heir to his philosophy.

    I’d say that, at best, Nietzsche’s influence on the NSDAP was very, very indirect, whereas the influence of Herbert Spencer, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Dietrich Eckart (to whom Hitler dedicated Mein Kampf) was much more evident.

    • Replies: @guest
    Spencer, the radical libertarian, a direct influence on Nazism? Why? Because he was the most famous Social Darwinist? There were about a million statist Social Darwinists to choose from, so there's no reason to pick an anarchist. And anyway, if you're going to reach that far, why not go all the way and say Darwin directly led to Nazism?

    Because Darwin was a dirty Social Darwinist, despite what we're talk. That's one of them Dangerous Secrets that keeps Blank Slaters who "effing love science" and need Darwin as an ally up at night.
  61. • Replies: @res

    What could possibly be the reason for this?
     
    Racism!

    What is interesting about that article is that 2x is much less than the difference for most of the FBI criminal statistics offending rates.

    I'm guessing that happens because the military is selective?
  62. @Sam Haysom
    It was Foucault who rehabilitated Nietzsche in Europe who didn't even need that much rehabilitation to begin with. To your corrosive to Christianity point notorious bitter atheist Walter Kauffman was rehabilitating as early as the sixties for precisely that purpose.

    One of the most fascinating aspects of Nietzsche’s “rehabilitation” on the Left is that Betty Friedan, the Jewish feminist, approvingly cited Nietzsche’s doctrine of the “will to power” in The Feminine Mystique.

    Anyone who has read Nietzsche thoroughly, and is familiar with his aphorisms on both Jews and women will find Friedan’s citation of him quite astonishing.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    "If you're going with a woman, don't forget to bring a whip." Or something like that. It's the line I remember best from Zarathustra.
  63. @Sam Haysom
    It was Foucault who rehabilitated Nietzsche in Europe who didn't even need that much rehabilitation to begin with. To your corrosive to Christianity point notorious bitter atheist Walter Kauffman was rehabilitating as early as the sixties for precisely that purpose.

    If memory serves, Kaufmann was himself a Jew.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    Of courae, and his introduction includes a paean to his people as the new Nietzschists. In fact he says that were the Jews gentiles and the gentiles Jews thousand years ago they would have succeeded (where historically actual gentiles did not) and utterly wiped out the historical Jews.

    In fact it is quite safe to say from a reading of the Nazi greats (and common sense doesn't hurt) that the egoism and individual greatness of emancipated Jews was the majority reason for why the German Greats felt they needed to be wiped out. It's quite fascinating actually and flies full in the face of the modern left's belief that the nazis regarded the jews as inferiors. They feared them as superiors but also recognized that this individualism would make them easy to conquer as the odds of a revolutionary fuhrer arising among them and being accepted by the masses wasn't much of a problem. And indeed, pretty much everywhere it turned out not to be - something that revolted me and animated my Judaic Nationalism from about ages 19-23.
  64. Nietzche wasn’t considered a Nazi until Heidegger started writing about him, and we all know Heidegger was such an evil Nazi he even bedded and defiled his Jewish student, Hannah Arendt, who went on to have a measure of success as a philosopher herself. His early association with Wagner didn’t help either. Because we all know Hitler liked Wagner and that’s all we need to know.
    But seriously, Nietzche hated both Christians and Jews, and most of humanity. He was the original misanthrope. He also hated Prussian militarism and Prussian “Junkers” and no doubt would have despised Nazis as vulgarians and plebeians, had he lived long enough to meet them.
    Having no formal training in philosophy but rather in classical philosophy and being a great natural writer, his philosophical style revolutionized a field that was unreadable and possibly worthless at that point under the obscure and onanist brand of Hegelianism of his time.
    You could say his greatest influences were Spinoza, Darwin, Lucretius and Carlyle.
    Although he didn’t create a philosophical system, Nietzche left behind a rich legacy in thoughtful and enjoyable essays and in the form a long prose poem, his Zarathustra.
    “Also sprach Zarathustra” was considered inocuous enough that copies of the book were lent to German war prisoners after the Reich was defeated, without a second thought. I own one such copy, bought many years after the war in a second – hand bookstore in West-Berlin, stamped by the Allied occupation forces.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Sorry, I meant "Having no formal training in philosophy but rather in classical philology" but autorrect thought it knew better than me!
    , @BB753
    Sorry, where I wrote Nietzche, read Nietzsche. (because of presbyopia)
  65. Nietzsche’s great value lies in his demolition of the shallow optimism on which all Progressivisms are founded. His mytho-poetic dreams of cures for nihilism in a post-religious world (ubermensch, eternal recurrence) are nonsensical and are what appeal to the left. They ignore the parts of Nietzsche that don’t fit their preconceptions.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    I agree. Nietzsche was such a reactionary that his thinking provides a cure against all kinds of progressivism, including modern Christianity. For Nietzsche, Cesare Borgia constituted the high-point of Catholicism. "Alexander the Great on Saint Peter's throne!" as he put it.
    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor's son.
    To understand the man, picture Nietzche basically as a classical nerd who hated almost anything that happened after Democritus. And he was blind as a bat, sickly all his life, bullied as a child and women didn't give him the time of day, even though he became an academic wunderkid, and died an involuntary celibate. Actually, he died from syphilis he contracted from a prostitute, the one and only time he got laid. Mad as a hatter. Too intelligent and talented for his own good. To the end he despised pity and being pitied. A great man, all in all. To be read with caution.
  66. AM says:
    @Gunnar von Cowtown
    Finally.... Steve-O writing about Nietzsche. This is so great!

    Over the past few years, I've read "Beyond Good & Evil", "The Gay Science" and "Thus Spake Zarathustra". A couple of observations;

    1. Nietzsche often serves as a blank slate for mid-wits or anyone with an agenda. He spends a lot of time arguing multiple sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion... if he comes to a conclusion at all. The whole "God is dead" quote is more often than not taken out of context. Freddy never wrote a sentence that short. If you don't read the whole book, it's easy to use a short quote to justify virtually anything.

    2. After reading Nietzsche, I can't take Eastern philosophy seriously. His "Aphorisms" chapter in "Beyond Good & Evil" is the sort of condensed wisdom that I've always sought from fortune cookies.

    3.a. Above all Nietzsche is a prophet. His criticisms of Christianity aren't really theological or metaphysical in nature. He foretold the descent of Christianity into "Churchianty", which enshrines radical egalitarianism above the Word of God. I don't have my Kindle on me to quote the highlighted passages, but in "Beyond Good & Evil" he blasts asceticism, noting that religious ascetics eventually even deny themselves God. What is liberal/progressive SJW-ism if not godless Puritanism?

    3.b. See that soy-addled, androgynous, pansexual, noodle armed, uptalking pajama boy over there? Zarathustra, himself, is metaphorically grabbing you by the lapels and shouting into your face, "BEHOLD THE LAST MAN!!!!"

    “3.a. Above all Nietzsche is a prophet. His criticisms of Christianity aren’t really theological or metaphysical in nature. He foretold the descent of Christianity into “Churchianty”, which enshrines radical egalitarianism above the Word of God. I don’t have my Kindle on me to quote the highlighted passages, but in “Beyond Good & Evil” he blasts asceticism, noting that religious ascetics eventually even deny themselves God. What is liberal/progressive SJW-ism if not godless Puritanism?”

    I’m putting this up as repeat. The whole comment is right on the money. 🙂

    This is Nietzche’s value, right here, as prophet. Even the Catholics, as a mass, have become godless Puritians to an extent. Churchians are everywhere in Christianity right now, to the point that the difference between a liberal Catholic and an SJW is disagreement over 1 issue and how they spend Sunday morning.

    So many people in the alt-right intellectually understand the critical role of Christianity in Western Civilization – and between the misinformation and the uncompelling (or repelling) nature of churchian culture they can’t bring themselves to the church door. (And I’ll add personal laziness, here, too.)

    We need to overcome the barrier and get *everyone* interested in saving the West to somehow get themselves to open that church door in an honest way. Nietzche is going to get us where he got himself, a comfy last few years of life before an early death. In many ways, his life is the recent history of the West in miniature.

    Because what the Neitzche failed to notice about Christianity was that slaves eventually found the courage to be marytrs, saints, and build cathedrals,and find out more about the world around them then anyone dared to dream was possible.

    • Agree: Sam Haysom
    • Replies: @Gunnar von Cowtown

    Because what the Neitzche failed to notice about Christianity was that slaves eventually found the courage to be marytrs, saints, and build cathedrals,and find out more about the world around them then anyone dared to dream was possible.
     
    Excellent point.
    IMHO, this blends very well with syonredux's quote about Emerson.

    Interesting to note that Nietzsche liked Emerson a lot; he said that reading him always cheered him up when he was depressed.
     
    Is there anything more transcendental than becoming the Ubermensch?
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    We need to overcome the barrier and get *everyone* interested in saving the West to somehow get themselves to open that church door in an honest way. Nietzche is going to get us where he got himself, a comfy last few years of life before an early death. In many ways, his life is the recent history of the West in miniature.

     

    Excellent, as is the original comment from Gunnar v C.
  67. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Deso Dogg

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)
     
    Is he really, though? In my experience, at least, the only people who know about Francis Galton tend to be people (like myself) who think he was a very impressive polymath. I hear, for example, Madison Grant (or the paraphrasing of Grant's views in the Great Gatsby) mentioned by leftists as the ultimate Anglo-American eugenicist proto-Nazi much more often. (Of course I could well be mistaken here.)

    There is a Midsomer Murders episode that is very down on Galton. One suspect mentions he is a Galton fan, and at first the detective is all “Galton! Discoverer of fingerprints! Great guy!” But then he starts reading up on Galton and finds out about the eugenics stuff, and by the end he’s theatrically throwing his Galton book in the trash. And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Interestingly enough, Midsomer Murders got in trouble with SJWs a while back:

    What do incest, blackmail and homosexuality have in common? They're all ideal Sunday evening television storylines according to the suspended Midsomer Murders producer Brian True-May. Race, however is not.

    True-May gave an interview to this week's Radio Times in which he argued that his quaint little show would be ruined if it was forced to shoehorn in ethnic minorities characters.

    "We just don't have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn't be the English village with them. It just wouldn't work," he said.
     

    Where his argument takes a sinister turn is his claim that Midsomer is "the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way".

    Leaving aside that no one seems to be able to define what "Englishness" actually is (presumably it doesn't include Welshness, Scottishness, or Cornish pasties), True-May's comments highlight his own creative shortcomings and are also wildly insulting to his audience. He is effectively telling black viewers (and actors) Midsomer is not for them, while simultaneously assuming the show's viewers are as small minded as he is.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/15/ethnic-minorities-midsomer-murders-brian-true-may
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.

     

    Gah, too late with the spoiler alert! We Calvinists have just embarked on watching the vast Midsomer Murders oeuvre; we've knocked off the first three episodes, and have found it good fun.

    There's no way I'll unremember this one.
  68. @guest
    How is it possible you've missed all the left-Nietzcheans? If none but alt-right weirdos bothered he'd be about as well-known as Evola. He'd never have been the name he is today--even as a negative example--if the left hadn't popularized him. Though admittedly Christians play into it. "God is dead" really trolled them.

    Not counting fascists, there's not a great amount of rightist (or alleged rightist) Nietzschean interest. Except among right-libertarians like Mencken. There's a great unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in the mind of Ayn Rand. Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    But these are drops in the pond compared to the left, which as of now still owns high culture. If you know Nietzsche's name and not from the 5-minute Hate sessions, it's because they want you to.

    Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    That’s because Nietzsche writes in pretty intense language – “the dead mediocrity of the masses” for example is heavy stuff. It easily lends itself to a ruthless mind.

    It also lends itself easily to comedy. From the classic Onion:

    http://www.theonion.com/article/new-nietzschean-diet-lets-you-eat-whatever-you-fea-1703

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    It starts slow but picks up steam

    Kansas City's John Mencken started the diet in January. He lost 35 pounds, eight inches from his waistline, and many of his slave moralities.
     
  69. @Achilles

    Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values
     
    Nietzsche is rubbish. It's just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world ("you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil").

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply 'man up' and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren't very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, 'Science' is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It's been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with 'punctuated equilibrium' if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it's not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Not entirely
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/05/jews-are-not-nihilists.html

    Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God’s existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done.

    The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it.

    Natural and sexual selection.

    There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    That is testable. We can look at the differences in genetic code between related organisms. Bacteria are the easiest to test- what is the rate of change you expect versus the current theory?

    • Replies: @HA
    "Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God’s existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done."

    The fact that something is ludicrous is no guarantee that some tribe or another won't regard it as sacred dogma -- especially if the tribe has intellectuals among its ranks.

    To be fair, intelligence and the notion of fake-it-till-you-make-it seem to go together, not just for Jews. iSteve readers are familiar with the quixotic attempt to remedy poverty by getting poor mothers to be as verbal to their children as educated mothers. Whatever probability of success one assigns to that effort, the studies on which they are based are fairly striking: intelligent mothers, far more so than poor/uneducated ones, have no problem having long baby-talk "discussions" with children who can barely understand a word or more. Likewise, talking to animals and to yourself is a marker of intelligence.

    Dumb people have less use for such patent stupidity than do intellectuals. Anyway, with respect to the earlier point, no one said the world has to make sense.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God’s existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done."

    Its fairly easy to understand. Their purpose is wrapped up in their identity, who they are as members of an ethnic tribe.

    They are part of a particular definable tribe that extends back into history. At some basic level, their identity is based on where they came from, and in this case, they believe that world history borrows heavily from the teachings contained in their Holy Book, and that the world is indebted to them for all the contributions that they have made to the world over the millennia. And all the history books pretty much bear this out and teach it (at least implicitly). Who wouldn't tend to feel that life has meaning and a higher purpose, when throughout the ages, one's tribe members often took the leading role in helping to make the world a better place? For an intellectual, that's a pretty good feeling to have growing up. 'Gosh, my ancestors invented/created this and that, I'm in that mold, have something to look forward to, and I can help make the world a better place too.'

    The difference between blacks and Jews, is that Jews's natural self-esteem is based in historical reality: Many of their ancestors were at the forefront of idealogical movements; at the forefront of various human centered disciples--math; science; medicine; law; etc. And also, their tribe members tend to out earn others in per capita income no matter the nation they live.

    What other group can say that their tribe's contributions have benefitted not only themselves individually/for the tribe, but also humanity at large, and for over so long an historical stretch of time?

    Answer: None.

  70. AM says:
    @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/872118209100390401

    It’s not off topic. If you go to your MD, listless and depressed, and they won’t tell you to pray or go to church or stop with the sugar or shut off the TV and get outdoors but give a referral for more drugs and pointless chatting what did we think we’re going to get? After a while the line between legal and illegal is just a formality.

    It sounds like Nietzsche never came up with a solution, but he at least understood the consequences of “God is dead and we have killed him”

    • Replies: @Moshe
    I hate the internet.

    It hath become worse as ages.

    Seriously. I just spent 5 minutes trying to find the precize zarathustra quote when he meets the saint and is shockingly surprised (and jealous) to hear that the saint in the forest has not heard rhat god is dead.

    INSTEAD I came across page after page of remedial "explanations" for what people have decjded Nietzsche meant.

    Anthow, here is the beautiful, and I mean truly beautiful, early Xarathustra quote.

    As a man of religious intensity it inspires me to penance.

    ----

    (The formating misses the occasional paragraph break)


    Zarathustra answered: “I love mankind.”

    “Why,” said the saint, “did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
    Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me.”

    Zarathustra answered: “What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men.”
    “Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them—that will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee!

    If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!”

    “No,” replied Zarathustra, “I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.”
    The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: “Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts.
    The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?

    Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like me—a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?”

    “And what doeth the saint in the forest?” asked Zarathustra.

    The saint answered: “I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.

    With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?”

    When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: “What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!”—And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.

    When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!”
  71. AM says:
    @Anonym
    OT: I would like to highlight the firing of Katie McHugh by the heretofore conservative news outlet breitbart.com.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/katie-mchugh-breitbart-writer-fired-over-muslims-t/

    Her crime? Speaking the truth.

    https://twitter.com/k_mcq/status/871138163728809984

    Even Breitbart is getting infected with progressivism. It really is like mind disease. They’ve recently run a series of articles about how we’re all supposed to feel sorry for the valedictorian at a Christian school who got herself knocked up because she didn’t kill the baby.

    Frankly, keeping the baby alive was the bare minimum of responsibility in that situation. The school did the right thing, but there’s Breitbart pushing a “conservative” agenda by defending the girl, who had no intention of letting the child up for adoption or marrying the father.

  72. @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/872118209100390401

    so sad…Lost my uncle 8 days ago to opiate OD, a childhood friend in 2015, a cousin in 2014 , and another cousin in 2003.

  73. That Conan quote actually used to be attributed to Genghis Khan. Probably, like a lot of historical personage quotes, apogryphal, but, nevertheless, a good quote.

  74. @blah blah blah blah
    OT - did anybody notice that Kevin Drum at Mother Jones just admitted that significiant racial differences in IQ are theoretically possible?

    This research can be easily misused, but it can also be properly used. It’s still way too early for it to point toward any conclusions about group differences in cognitive abilities, but in a few years it will start to provide meaningful real-world results. This doesn’t bother me too much since I think the research will show either zero or minuscule differences between racial groups. But it might not. You never know with science.

    Sounds like Kevin is whistling past the graveyard where his misconceptions are about to be buried. I wish I could think of a witty idea of what that tune might be.( It’s the end of the world as we know it….. But I feel fine ?) Maybe somebody here can come up with a better one.
    Apparently Kevin didn’t notice that analysis of SAT scores broken down by race and family income that effectively buried the hypothesis that differences in performance between races are purely environmental with no genetic component.

  75. @BB753
    Nietzche wasn't considered a Nazi until Heidegger started writing about him, and we all know Heidegger was such an evil Nazi he even bedded and defiled his Jewish student, Hannah Arendt, who went on to have a measure of success as a philosopher herself. His early association with Wagner didn't help either. Because we all know Hitler liked Wagner and that's all we need to know.
    But seriously, Nietzche hated both Christians and Jews, and most of humanity. He was the original misanthrope. He also hated Prussian militarism and Prussian "Junkers" and no doubt would have despised Nazis as vulgarians and plebeians, had he lived long enough to meet them.
    Having no formal training in philosophy but rather in classical philosophy and being a great natural writer, his philosophical style revolutionized a field that was unreadable and possibly worthless at that point under the obscure and onanist brand of Hegelianism of his time.
    You could say his greatest influences were Spinoza, Darwin, Lucretius and Carlyle.
    Although he didn't create a philosophical system, Nietzche left behind a rich legacy in thoughtful and enjoyable essays and in the form a long prose poem, his Zarathustra.
    "Also sprach Zarathustra" was considered inocuous enough that copies of the book were lent to German war prisoners after the Reich was defeated, without a second thought. I own one such copy, bought many years after the war in a second - hand bookstore in West-Berlin, stamped by the Allied occupation forces.

    Sorry, I meant “Having no formal training in philosophy but rather in classical philology” but autorrect thought it knew better than me!

    • Replies: @BB753
    Hell, auto correct, lol!
  76. I have an OT observation . The Nazis who are EVERYONES favorite villains have in fact triumphed . For mass murder no one can surpass Stalin or Mao . Compared to these heroes of the left the Nazis were amateurish . And yet there are many millions who still think well of them especially in the West . No one will admit to liking the Nazis except the occasional crackpot . But “The glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome” are as completely vanished as our Western civilization is about to be . Where today is Athens , where is Sparta , where is the Great King ? Rome , the Byzantines , Islamic Spain all came to ignominious sordid ends as will we in the West . But the Nazis like Carthage and Hannibal grip our imaginations . The Third Reich existed for only 12 years but is made immortal by our jealous resentment of their glorious and bloody passing . If anyone can say “Après moi le déluge” it is the Nazis . It took an unnatural alliance of nations to defeat the Nazis . Which is the more glorious end ? To embrace Götterdämmerung or submit to domination by the subhumans flooding in and welcomed by the women and eunuchs that rule us ?

    And now an OT question : this dark matter thing seems like kind of a make shift patch to me . Can anyone here ‘splain in simple terms why it is not BS ?

  77. @Thucydides
    Nietzsche's great value lies in his demolition of the shallow optimism on which all Progressivisms are founded. His mytho-poetic dreams of cures for nihilism in a post-religious world (ubermensch, eternal recurrence) are nonsensical and are what appeal to the left. They ignore the parts of Nietzsche that don't fit their preconceptions.

    I agree. Nietzsche was such a reactionary that his thinking provides a cure against all kinds of progressivism, including modern Christianity. For Nietzsche, Cesare Borgia constituted the high-point of Catholicism. “Alexander the Great on Saint Peter’s throne!” as he put it.
    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor’s son.
    To understand the man, picture Nietzche basically as a classical nerd who hated almost anything that happened after Democritus. And he was blind as a bat, sickly all his life, bullied as a child and women didn’t give him the time of day, even though he became an academic wunderkid, and died an involuntary celibate. Actually, he died from syphilis he contracted from a prostitute, the one and only time he got laid. Mad as a hatter. Too intelligent and talented for his own good. To the end he despised pity and being pitied. A great man, all in all. To be read with caution.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor’s son.

     

    Might that be better phrased 'Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation because he was a Lutheran pastor's son?'

    We rebel most zealously against that which we know best.

  78. @BB753
    Nietzche wasn't considered a Nazi until Heidegger started writing about him, and we all know Heidegger was such an evil Nazi he even bedded and defiled his Jewish student, Hannah Arendt, who went on to have a measure of success as a philosopher herself. His early association with Wagner didn't help either. Because we all know Hitler liked Wagner and that's all we need to know.
    But seriously, Nietzche hated both Christians and Jews, and most of humanity. He was the original misanthrope. He also hated Prussian militarism and Prussian "Junkers" and no doubt would have despised Nazis as vulgarians and plebeians, had he lived long enough to meet them.
    Having no formal training in philosophy but rather in classical philosophy and being a great natural writer, his philosophical style revolutionized a field that was unreadable and possibly worthless at that point under the obscure and onanist brand of Hegelianism of his time.
    You could say his greatest influences were Spinoza, Darwin, Lucretius and Carlyle.
    Although he didn't create a philosophical system, Nietzche left behind a rich legacy in thoughtful and enjoyable essays and in the form a long prose poem, his Zarathustra.
    "Also sprach Zarathustra" was considered inocuous enough that copies of the book were lent to German war prisoners after the Reich was defeated, without a second thought. I own one such copy, bought many years after the war in a second - hand bookstore in West-Berlin, stamped by the Allied occupation forces.

    Sorry, where I wrote Nietzche, read Nietzsche. (because of presbyopia)

  79. @Felix..

    On the other hand, Nietzsche’s preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values sound like a John Milius screenplay or an alt-right Tweet: “Steppe barbarian. Nationalist, Fascist, Nudist Bodybuilder! Purification of world. Revolt of the damned. Destruction of the cities!”
     
    There is nothing preposterous about such values. What is the difference between the West of today, on the verge of collapse and annihilation, and the West of yesterday, the virile conqueror of the world and self assured linchpin of the scientific revolution? It is not the baseline level of competence that has changed, but the transition from "preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values" to "slave morality" values.

    Are you implying, Steve, that if given the choice between the two polarities, you would choose the "slave morality" and extinction over the "preposterous" will to power values? If so, wherefore this blog? You should be a big fan of the NYT editorial page as it is a perfect encapsulation of the "slave morality" and as far as conceptually possible from "preposterous" will to power as you can get.

    (Of course, the NYT editorial page is actually one of the most brilliantly executed manifestations of "the will to power" we've had the privilege to witness in human history, when you think about "who" writes it to influence "whom", but that's too meta for the point I was trying to make.)

    YOU MUST SUBMIT.

  80. Nietzsche’s philosophical starting point was the same as that of the Frankfurt School. They both “deconstructed” the truth and then built up worldviews based on subjective feeling and personal preference, not objective truth. Even though Nietzsche went in a somewhat right-wing direction, the philosophical foundation of anti-Christianity and anti-rationalism was exactly the same.

  81. @dearieme
    Perhaps you mean "less prone to, less given to, less vulnerable to the weakness for verbosity, wordiness, and sesquipedalianism for which German philosophers notorious are".

    They certainly infected American academics, didn't they?

    Perhaps you mean “less prone to, less given to, less vulnerable to the weakness for verbosity, wordiness, and sesquipedalianism for which German philosophers notorious are”.

    They certainly infected American academics, didn’t they?

    Indeed…..Although, nowadays the bad prose virus comes from France: Lacan, Derrida, etc. Reading those fellows, it’s hard to believe that French lit used to be famous for its lucidity….

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Conversation became tergiversation.
  82. @Anon
    There is a Midsomer Murders episode that is very down on Galton. One suspect mentions he is a Galton fan, and at first the detective is all "Galton! Discoverer of fingerprints! Great guy!" But then he starts reading up on Galton and finds out about the eugenics stuff, and by the end he's theatrically throwing his Galton book in the trash. And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.

    Interestingly enough, Midsomer Murders got in trouble with SJWs a while back:

    What do incest, blackmail and homosexuality have in common? They’re all ideal Sunday evening television storylines according to the suspended Midsomer Murders producer Brian True-May. Race, however is not.

    True-May gave an interview to this week’s Radio Times in which he argued that his quaint little show would be ruined if it was forced to shoehorn in ethnic minorities characters.

    “We just don’t have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn’t be the English village with them. It just wouldn’t work,” he said.

    Where his argument takes a sinister turn is his claim that Midsomer is “the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way”.

    Leaving aside that no one seems to be able to define what “Englishness” actually is (presumably it doesn’t include Welshness, Scottishness, or Cornish pasties), True-May’s comments highlight his own creative shortcomings and are also wildly insulting to his audience. He is effectively telling black viewers (and actors) Midsomer is not for them, while simultaneously assuming the show’s viewers are as small minded as he is.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/15/ethnic-minorities-midsomer-murders-brian-true-may

  83. @AM
    "3.a. Above all Nietzsche is a prophet. His criticisms of Christianity aren’t really theological or metaphysical in nature. He foretold the descent of Christianity into “Churchianty”, which enshrines radical egalitarianism above the Word of God. I don’t have my Kindle on me to quote the highlighted passages, but in “Beyond Good & Evil” he blasts asceticism, noting that religious ascetics eventually even deny themselves God. What is liberal/progressive SJW-ism if not godless Puritanism?"

    I'm putting this up as repeat. The whole comment is right on the money. :)

    This is Nietzche's value, right here, as prophet. Even the Catholics, as a mass, have become godless Puritians to an extent. Churchians are everywhere in Christianity right now, to the point that the difference between a liberal Catholic and an SJW is disagreement over 1 issue and how they spend Sunday morning.

    So many people in the alt-right intellectually understand the critical role of Christianity in Western Civilization - and between the misinformation and the uncompelling (or repelling) nature of churchian culture they can't bring themselves to the church door. (And I'll add personal laziness, here, too.)

    We need to overcome the barrier and get *everyone* interested in saving the West to somehow get themselves to open that church door in an honest way. Nietzche is going to get us where he got himself, a comfy last few years of life before an early death. In many ways, his life is the recent history of the West in miniature.

    Because what the Neitzche failed to notice about Christianity was that slaves eventually found the courage to be marytrs, saints, and build cathedrals,and find out more about the world around them then anyone dared to dream was possible.

    Because what the Neitzche failed to notice about Christianity was that slaves eventually found the courage to be marytrs, saints, and build cathedrals,and find out more about the world around them then anyone dared to dream was possible.

    Excellent point.
    IMHO, this blends very well with syonredux’s quote about Emerson.

    Interesting to note that Nietzsche liked Emerson a lot; he said that reading him always cheered him up when he was depressed.

    Is there anything more transcendental than becoming the Ubermensch?

  84. In Nietzsche’s defense it is often pointed out that while perhaps he didn’t much like Jews (other than Spinoza), he really hated anti-Semites.

    Apparently, Nietzsche never heard of AIPAC or met a Jewish SJW.

  85. @Achilles

    Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values
     
    Nietzsche is rubbish. It's just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world ("you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil").

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply 'man up' and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren't very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, 'Science' is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It's been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with 'punctuated equilibrium' if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it's not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    Achilles, that was a very perceptive comment.

    In retrospect, its easy to see N as basically about emotional appeal and a creature of his times –

    1) God is dead, metaphysics was a foolish dream, there is nothing but materialism.
    2) You now get to invent your own values out of thin air. All is relativism.
    3) But not really, you ought to prefer master morality and power.
    4) So there is an objective standard after all! Yay!
    5) This objective standard is called “Life” and “Power”.
    6) But it isn’t a metaphysical principle. Even if it functions exactly like one. Its completely different. You’re an idiot if you don’t see this.
    7) It isn’t God. Even if it functions like the metaphysical basis for values like God did. Its completely different. Only a decadent modern weakling cannot see this.
    8) All life strives for power, it seems to me. So I decided to make life and power the basis for my values. But this isn’t the “naturalistic” fallacy. Oh no. Not at all. You’re probably too stupid to see this, because you’re decadent.

    N really had emotional appeal to people who wanted religion and naturalism together, so it was agreed to consider the above “profound”.

    Oh, and it isn’t surprising that Jews liked N – N was an elitist materialist who worshiped power – this is basically Jewish metaphysics.

    • Replies: @Achilles
    Nice summary.

    I'll say this for Nietzsche, however, as we learned from his tightrope walker parable, at least he would give us a decent burial in the hollow of a tree and say a few words over us.

    And, probably, quite a few words!

  86. The white identity is bound by The Nietzschean Knot. Cut through it with this sword:

    “Individualism is an essential aspect of whites.”

    Coincidentally, this was a central point of the Red Ice conversation between KMac and myself published today.

  87. @SFG
    No literary people took Lovecraft seriously until the generation of humanities types reared on nerd culture started hitting the academy. Unfortunately that also meant they had to bring their politics into it. The computer nerds who loved him in the 80s and 90s didn't care if he was racist and, anyway, Cthulhu's hardly racist; he's going to eat everyone regardless of their color. It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate). Though I still think they'll win, or there will be right-wing and left-wing nerd culture, which is already starting to happen (compare Steven Universe and anime fandom).

    It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    It’s kinda funny. I’ve had conversations with a few SJW Lovecraft-Haters.They are quite adamant about racism playing a central role in his stories. Most of them, however, seem to be quite unfamiliar with his work. For example, take Victor LaValle, the author of “The Ballad of Black Tom.” When asked by NPR to discuss racism in HPL’s fiction, he made the following reply:

    Like, for instance, the story where he has a cat named [expletive] Man, and he calls him that 19 times in this really short story and takes great pleasure in talking about kicking this cat and all this stuff. And then he has other things other things – he has a poem that’s pretty famous. He has a longer story – “The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward” -that gets into some ugly stuff

    The poem is “On The Creation of Ni[*****], and it was never published during HPL’s lifetime. The cat named ” [expletive] Man” comes from “The Rats in the Walls.” But Mr LaValle’s recollection of the role played by the cat in the story is quite incorrect. The cat is never abused in the tale. Perhaps Mr LaValle was confusing “Rats” with Poe’s “The Black Cat?”And naming animals after the “N-Word” was far from uncommon during the first half of the 20th century (e.g, the dog called Ni**** in the British film The Dam Busters). As for the “ugly stuff” in The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward, I don’t know what he’s talking about. Non-White characters play a very peripheral role in the novel, and, when bad things happen to them, it is due to the machinations of the book’s villain, the thoroughly Anglo-Saxon Joseph Curwen.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Forgot to provide the link to the interview:


    http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468558238/the-ballad-of-black-tom-offers-a-tribute-and-critique-of-lovecraft
  88. @syonredux

    It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.
     
    It's kinda funny. I've had conversations with a few SJW Lovecraft-Haters.They are quite adamant about racism playing a central role in his stories. Most of them, however, seem to be quite unfamiliar with his work. For example, take Victor LaValle, the author of "The Ballad of Black Tom." When asked by NPR to discuss racism in HPL's fiction, he made the following reply:

    Like, for instance, the story where he has a cat named [expletive] Man, and he calls him that 19 times in this really short story and takes great pleasure in talking about kicking this cat and all this stuff. And then he has other things other things - he has a poem that's pretty famous. He has a longer story - "The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward" -that gets into some ugly stuff
     
    The poem is "On The Creation of Ni[*****], and it was never published during HPL's lifetime. The cat named " [expletive] Man" comes from "The Rats in the Walls." But Mr LaValle's recollection of the role played by the cat in the story is quite incorrect. The cat is never abused in the tale. Perhaps Mr LaValle was confusing "Rats" with Poe's "The Black Cat?"And naming animals after the "N-Word" was far from uncommon during the first half of the 20th century (e.g, the dog called Ni**** in the British film The Dam Busters). As for the "ugly stuff" in The Case Of Charles Dexter Ward, I don't know what he's talking about. Non-White characters play a very peripheral role in the novel, and, when bad things happen to them, it is due to the machinations of the book's villain, the thoroughly Anglo-Saxon Joseph Curwen.
  89. «Life is a fountain of delight; but where the rabble also drinks, all wells are poisoned.» –Nietzsche

  90. @Anonym
    OT: I would like to highlight the firing of Katie McHugh by the heretofore conservative news outlet breitbart.com.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/katie-mchugh-breitbart-writer-fired-over-muslims-t/

    Her crime? Speaking the truth.

    https://twitter.com/k_mcq/status/871138163728809984

    Conquest’s Second Law, updated: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.”

    Why? Because it’s an organization and organizations attract intellectuals.

    • Replies: @Venator
    Ah, sacrebleu, I intended the "not explicitly right-wing" to be striked out.
  91. @guest
    His anti-semitism or lackthereof is neither here nor there regarding Nietzsche's popularity. Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Just recently, they started publicizing the fact that Mencken was anti-semitic. Not sure why, but he wasn't unpersoned as a result. He's still semi-respectable, because he's useful against Christianity and the booboosie. Martin Luther is a name you can bring up in polite conversation, though not far back people were writing books tracing the Holocaust back to him. Wagner is always coming in and out of acceptability.

    They're always holding back, pushing forward, taking away and putting back again the stigmata of anti-semitism at their convenience. It hardly matters whether Nietzsche really was anti-semitic or not, either. Because they could just say he was, and what's the difference? It worked for a damn long time, if only by implication.

    From reading Mencken, I notice that he’s very anti-WASP. He was of German ancestry. He was against white Southern holy roller type Christianity, but had respect for the RCC Latin rite mass (the one during his time).

    He also wrote that the way to deal with white Southern holy rollers was for Southern blacks to convert to Islam.

    But when dealing with Nietszche and Mencken today, whether they are anti-Semites, anti-black doesn’t really matter because their beliefs would not stand today as we now know about IQ/race differences.

    Their writings have to be viewed within the time they wrote (a white Christian world), subjected to IQ/race science of today and seen as interesting historically, but not relevant anymore.

    If Mencken were alive today, what would he think of the RCC? If Nietszche were alive today what would he think of Islam? We are living in a different world and need to look at these writers from a pre-1968 and new 21st century perspective of IQ/race.

    • Replies: @guest
    "He was against white Southern holy roller type Christianity"

    Yes, as caricatured in Elmer Gantry. Or, in my lifetime, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
    The specter of Evangelism, ever-ready to establish a theocracy or whatever, haunts the left. Which is why Mencken still gets to be a popular figure, despite his many sins against the Current Year.

    Well, that and his denigration of traditional America and his contempt for: middle-class Babbittism, the country as opposed to the city, middle-brow culture, etc. For any number of opinions that still resonate with the left.

  92. Abe says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Those who spread memes rule the world. Nietzsche was able to turn a phrase that stuck in your mind, and that seems to matter more than well reasoned arguments when it comes to persuading the masses.

    I'm reminded of how the term White Genocide went viral. It was Bob Whitaker's brainchild, and it has forever altered the political plans of our elites.

    Those who spread memes rule the world. Nietzsche was able to turn a phrase that stuck in your mind, and that seems to matter more than well reasoned arguments when it comes to persuading the masses.

    Periodically I get into some crime/police TV series, like WIRE or DEXTER (incidentally DEXTER’s Sgt. Dokes is probably one of my favorite black TV characters of all time- he’s a realistically-portrayed African-American policeman who’s not some ridiculous rocket hacker surgeon genius counter-stereotype, just a tough, honorable, intuitive officer of the law who can smell a psychopath from 1000 yards) and then start fantasizing about quitting my boring desk job to become a cop. But then as THE WIRE makes blazingly clear, if you’re a beat cop or a detective, above you is the police chief. Who answers to whatever schmuck is currently the mayor. Who has to keep an eye out for the governor. And both better be wary of the Attorney General. Who serves at the pleasure of the President. And as the last 8 years made abundantly clear, the supposedly “no-drama”, “dignified”, and “inspirational” President has his psyche constantly buffeted by whatever combination of adolescent resentments, fake news, non-replicable social science, social media sh!t storms, and clown intellectual film-flam able to get the most purchase on his affectations at a given moment. So if you’re a cop on the street risking your life every day, your boss is not even President Bizarro, it’s Ta Genius Coates.

  93. @Venator
    Conquest's Second Law, updated: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing."

    Why? Because it's an organization and organizations attract intellectuals.

    Ah, sacrebleu, I intended the “not explicitly right-wing” to be striked out.

  94. @SFG
    No literary people took Lovecraft seriously until the generation of humanities types reared on nerd culture started hitting the academy. Unfortunately that also meant they had to bring their politics into it. The computer nerds who loved him in the 80s and 90s didn't care if he was racist and, anyway, Cthulhu's hardly racist; he's going to eat everyone regardless of their color. It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate). Though I still think they'll win, or there will be right-wing and left-wing nerd culture, which is already starting to happen (compare Steven Universe and anime fandom).

    It wasn’t just his private letters. He wrote essays, and was a critic and journalist. You can’t much find his badthink in the stories, except by suggestion, but you can find it in other published works.

  95. @Absent Professor
    Nietzsche's rehabilitation by the Left was already an accomplished fact 30 years ago when Allan Bloom discussed the phenomenon in "The Closing of the American Mind." Although Bloom's discussion of the fate of the academy is largely remembered today for its fogeyish critique of Rock and Roll, his analysis of academic intellectual trends is largely accurate and his predictions are often spot on.

    As Bloom points out, the academic Left largely abandoned Marxian economic analysis in the 1960s in favor of trekking along roads laid down by Nietzsche. They've been going full bore ever since. This is part of the reason why the collapse of the Soviet Union meant exactly nothing to academics - none of them are doctrinaire Marxists anymore, and the ones who bother "identifying" as such do so for shock value (or out of pure ignorance, which is not in short supply in the academy these days).

    There are many reasons for this and they're complex and interesting to investigate for those so inclined. Since iSteve readers trend toward numbers guys and hopeless autistics I imagine few are going to be inclined this way. For the sake of demonstration, I will point out a singularly unhelpful approach taken by Mr. Achilles above. He writes the following:

    "Nietzsche is rubbish. It’s just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world (“you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil”).

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah."

    Of course, Nietzsche himself would agree completely about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. He himself argues that men who grow up in a world informed by science are incapable by and large of believing in revelations from God. We are too aware of the history of texts and textual transmission, the facts of human love for power, the realities of manipulation, and the all-too-human qualities which anyone can see in purportedly divine texts to believe in divine revelation with the simplicity of a first century Christian. The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore? Our society relies on revelation at multiple levels and in ways we are just beginning to understand. To remove that underpinning is to expose the whole edifice to problems and contradictions it may be unable to survive. On some level, as Nietzsche says, we must make up some new gods to support the structure - but men do not bow down to purely human idols. Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God because no one would obey him otherwise. So, how do we create something that has the power of a deity to command respect and obedience and belief? This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as "rubbish" seems unworthy of serious men.

    To return to the Left and Nietzsche: much of the utopian nonsense of modern Leftism derives from a Nietzsche-inspired vision of a socially constructed future utopia (rather than a Marxist vision of a classless society). The more you explore leftist thought the more Nietzschean elements you find in it. Unfortunately, intellectual influences aren't like chemistry, where elements can be distinguished within a compound; it works more like a stew, where you can identify certain flavors but can't isolate them from the mix anymore.

    As for Bloom's early observation on this phenomenon, the mind which was closing in 1987 is in 2017 completely shut: campus protests of the last two years demonstrate this to perfection. At least the kids' minds will be full of safe spaces!

    This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as “rubbish” seems unworthy of serious men.

    Nietzschean atheistic existentialism is a dead end substantively, but yes, to your point certainly we should take the effects of Nietzschean thinking seriously.

    But let’s go back to Kant, which was the source of the problem, lying in an unproven assertion on his part.

    Before Nietzsche with his melodramatic mournfulness declared God dead, Kant had placed God beyond the phenonemal realm, into the noumenal realm as he defined it where we can have no sense or perception of God.

    But the notion that we can have no sense or perception of God was simply an assertion. It was not proven by Kant. People who liked the assertion ran with it, and treated it as if it were some proven principle of science.

    Kant’s assertion may agree with your own subjective experience. You may not perceive a connection to God. People in your own circles of contacts may not. But that does not mean your neighbor does not. Or that hundreds of millions of people do not or that hundreds of millions of people in the past did not perceive a connection to God that is or was in fact reality.

    To take an analogy, you may be colorblind. Perhaps other people whose opinions you respect are also colorblind. All of you collectively may come to the conclusion that humans do not perceive color. It may seem a reasonable and logical conclusion to you. But it would not be correct.

    You say, “Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God.” You claim to know this was a pretension on the part of Moses. How do you know this? Were you there? Were you standing next to Moses and saying to Moses, “Ah, I see the problem. There is a gas vent in the ground here right behind this bush and the sun’s rays have sparked a bit of tinder causing a natural flare, giving the appearance of a burning bush?”

    Notwithstanding the neat distinction by Kant between noumenal and phenomenal, we don’t even really know the extent to which and how we perceive phenomena. What we suppose is in the noumenal realm may in reality be in the phenomenal realm.

    Is there a way for information to be communicated directly into our consciousness other than through our eyes, ears and other conventionally-recognized senses? This cannot be, or at least has not been, excluded scientifically. Relativity was a very clever insight on Einstein’s part. Perhaps some future clever thinker and scientist will conceive a scientific approach to detecting such activity. Would Kant have said this is impossible?

    To return to Neitzsche, he was not the first to identify the problem. His claimed central insight had already been recorded 3,000 years earlier: “Where there is no vision the people perish,” wrote the writer of Proverbs 29:18. The word “vision” here refers to divine revelation.

    If atheistic existentialists had any sense of enlightened self-interest, they would ally with “Crusader Christians” as some of them call us to reestablish and defend the foundations of Western Civilization.

    In truth, it was not the pre-Christian Roman Empire that provided the foundation of what became Western Civilization at its stunningly glorious height. The Roman Empire provided the architecture, as it were. As it expanded beyond its particular tribal origin and gods, the pre-Christian Roman Republic and then Empire evolved into little more than a pirate band writ large, running a kind of ponzi scheme of conquest that always required great amounts of new agricultural land and slaves or conquered nations to convert into giant tax farms in order to pay and maintain its forces of conquest and energize and supply its metropolis and outposts.

    Beyond the initial Roman Empire-derived structure, the moral content of Western Civilization was supplied by Christianity. One of the distinguishing features of Christianity is that proselytization must be by peaceful preaching (yes, sometimes honored in the breach by those claiming its name).

    This is what gave room for so much tolerance in Western society and modeled scientific debate and progress. Those who do not respond to proselytization are not infidels who must be put to the sword or enslaved, as in Islam. But when those tolerated become the intolerant and turn their guns on the foundation in order to destroy it, the intolerant must no longer be tolerated lest the foundations be destroyed.

    • Replies: @guest
    I don't actually know much about Nietzsche's intellectual development, but I don't envy philosophers of his stripe growing up around that time. Victorian Idealism is a sickening affair. All this empty, blowhardy post-Christian substitute for Christian feeling without God. It's surprising more people didn't rise up and say forget about all that stuffiness, and let's have the fun, old kind of transcendence out in the open air. You know, with Blond Beasts roaming the prairie, ravishing maidens, eating wolves' hearts.

    Instead, we got weird, sickly virgins shut up in ivory towers babbling on for hundreds of pages about phenomena. How tempting it must have been to chuck out God, traditional morality, and even truth, listening to those blowhards. But, of course, there were other routes available. Schopenhauer, who's superior in every way to Nietzsche except readability, ended in pessimism, which wouldn't do for Nietzsche. But he saw the human (all too human) condition more clearly, and wasn't so childish. I don't see much point in being an enfant terrible. Not in the adult world of metaphysics.

    The main thing, though, is that Nietzsche didn't really go so radical. Or he did, but only in certain directions. Some roots he pulled out violently, others he didn't think of touching. I can see wanting to go beyond Kant, beyond Christianity, even, to escape the suffocating trap. But in going back thousands of years, he still stayed under Kant's thumb. It was Kant, after all, who convinced Western philosophy forevermore that we can't know anything. (Or we can't know anything "in itself," which is the same thing.) Nietzsche is still a Victorian Idealist, if a bratty one.

    Hey, how about you just chuck out Idealism? Who needs it?
    , @MBlanc46
    Kant begins the first Critique by stating that all knowledge begins with experience (not "the senses"). In the next sentence, he challenges the reader to show where else the source of knowledge might be. The ball is in your court.
  96. res says:
    @blah blah blah blah
    OT - did anybody notice that Kevin Drum at Mother Jones just admitted that significiant racial differences in IQ are theoretically possible?

    This research can be easily misused, but it can also be properly used. It’s still way too early for it to point toward any conclusions about group differences in cognitive abilities, but in a few years it will start to provide meaningful real-world results. This doesn’t bother me too much since I think the research will show either zero or minuscule differences between racial groups. But it might not. You never know with science.

    Here’s the link: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/the-intelligence-wars-are-likely-to-heat-up-again-soon/

    That looks like a response to the Sniekers et al. (2017) paper. James Thompson has a post about that paper (and Davide Piffer’s related work) at https://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/

    Also, nothing in this work suggests there are genetic difference in intelligence when comparing people of different ancestries.

    Well, except that the SNPs discovered appear to have different frequencies in different races. See Davide Piffer’s work.

    If anything, it suggests that the genetics that give rise to IQ are more subtle and intricate than we can ever really understand

    When all else fails there is always FUD!

    The comments are oddly disconnected from the article. They look like they are for a completely different article. Multiple comments confirm this. Interesting.

    The linked Vox article was actually decent (with the usual goodthinker style caveats) with extended quotes from the paper’s senior author Danielle Posthuma: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/6/15739590/genome-wide-studies
    It looks like she will be the one engaging publicly about the Sniekers paper. Also see Dr. Thompson’s most recent blog post: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/comments-on-piffer-from-prof-posthuma/

    It is interesting to contrast Drum’s statement last month with your quote from the current article.

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/charles-murray-still-convinced-whites-are-smarter-blacks/

    Maybe eventually Murray will find his long-sought gene complexes for cognitive ability, and will be able to show that there really is a genetic difference between blacks and whites. But I doubt it. The evidence just doesn’t point in that direction. Maybe in ten or twenty years we’ll know for sure.

  97. @Barnard
    OT:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/07/black-troops-much-twice-likely-punished-commanders-courts/102555630/

    What could possibly be the reason for this?

    What could possibly be the reason for this?

    Racism!

    What is interesting about that article is that 2x is much less than the difference for most of the FBI criminal statistics offending rates.

    I’m guessing that happens because the military is selective?

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster

    the military is selective
     
    lol
  98. @Dr. X

    In recent decades, the reputation of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has been largely rehabilitated despite the unfortunate events of 1933-1945.
     
    I think it's quite unfair to associate Nietzsche with the "events of 1933-1945" as so many have done. While it's certainly true that Nietzsche advocated the abolition of Christian morality with regard to the treatment of the untermenschen, and had no qualms about the extreme measures that would be necessary ("the weak and the botched shall perish, and we shall help them to it") it's quite doubtful that Nietzsche would have seen National Socialism -- a working-class, mass movement -- as the rightful heir to his philosophy.

    I'd say that, at best, Nietzsche's influence on the NSDAP was very, very indirect, whereas the influence of Herbert Spencer, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Dietrich Eckart (to whom Hitler dedicated Mein Kampf) was much more evident.

    Spencer, the radical libertarian, a direct influence on Nazism? Why? Because he was the most famous Social Darwinist? There were about a million statist Social Darwinists to choose from, so there’s no reason to pick an anarchist. And anyway, if you’re going to reach that far, why not go all the way and say Darwin directly led to Nazism?

    Because Darwin was a dirty Social Darwinist, despite what we’re talk. That’s one of them Dangerous Secrets that keeps Blank Slaters who “effing love science” and need Darwin as an ally up at night.

  99. @Absent Professor
    Nietzsche's rehabilitation by the Left was already an accomplished fact 30 years ago when Allan Bloom discussed the phenomenon in "The Closing of the American Mind." Although Bloom's discussion of the fate of the academy is largely remembered today for its fogeyish critique of Rock and Roll, his analysis of academic intellectual trends is largely accurate and his predictions are often spot on.

    As Bloom points out, the academic Left largely abandoned Marxian economic analysis in the 1960s in favor of trekking along roads laid down by Nietzsche. They've been going full bore ever since. This is part of the reason why the collapse of the Soviet Union meant exactly nothing to academics - none of them are doctrinaire Marxists anymore, and the ones who bother "identifying" as such do so for shock value (or out of pure ignorance, which is not in short supply in the academy these days).

    There are many reasons for this and they're complex and interesting to investigate for those so inclined. Since iSteve readers trend toward numbers guys and hopeless autistics I imagine few are going to be inclined this way. For the sake of demonstration, I will point out a singularly unhelpful approach taken by Mr. Achilles above. He writes the following:

    "Nietzsche is rubbish. It’s just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world (“you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil”).

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah."

    Of course, Nietzsche himself would agree completely about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. He himself argues that men who grow up in a world informed by science are incapable by and large of believing in revelations from God. We are too aware of the history of texts and textual transmission, the facts of human love for power, the realities of manipulation, and the all-too-human qualities which anyone can see in purportedly divine texts to believe in divine revelation with the simplicity of a first century Christian. The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore? Our society relies on revelation at multiple levels and in ways we are just beginning to understand. To remove that underpinning is to expose the whole edifice to problems and contradictions it may be unable to survive. On some level, as Nietzsche says, we must make up some new gods to support the structure - but men do not bow down to purely human idols. Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God because no one would obey him otherwise. So, how do we create something that has the power of a deity to command respect and obedience and belief? This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as "rubbish" seems unworthy of serious men.

    To return to the Left and Nietzsche: much of the utopian nonsense of modern Leftism derives from a Nietzsche-inspired vision of a socially constructed future utopia (rather than a Marxist vision of a classless society). The more you explore leftist thought the more Nietzschean elements you find in it. Unfortunately, intellectual influences aren't like chemistry, where elements can be distinguished within a compound; it works more like a stew, where you can identify certain flavors but can't isolate them from the mix anymore.

    As for Bloom's early observation on this phenomenon, the mind which was closing in 1987 is in 2017 completely shut: campus protests of the last two years demonstrate this to perfection. At least the kids' minds will be full of safe spaces!

    The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore?

    And Utilitarianism which fully informs almost all liberal Enlightenment thinking about purpose and morals and which is universally relied upon as the argument of last resort by every faction in all respectable mainstream political discussion is weak tea compared to Nietzsche’s unsentimental and icy cold analysis of our godless situation.

    As for all the Sturm und Drang surrounding Zarathustra I much prefer The Birth of Tragedy which should be required reading in high school as it is as good an introduction to the core forces alive in Western Civilization as ever written.

  100. @guest
    First among the Nazis, who started getting the message out 20 years or more after Nietzsche's death and 30 years after he went mad? Or Rand, who didn't reach a wide audience until she published the Fountainhead 50 years after his death? That's just inaccurate.

    These people, Randians and Nazis, were influential but outside the Western mainstream. Nietzsche has been in and out of it at different points, but often enough is one of the Cool Kids. He didn't get that way by being first picked up by Nazis and Objectivists. We probably wouldn't know his name if he'd have sat on the shelf for that long.

    But he was picked up by the Nazis and later Rand (as you rightly observed, I had it the other way round). Rand’s fullest development of Nietzsche’s ideas were in her classic tome, Atlas Shrugged, which was one of the biggest best sellers of the 20th century. Selling a whole bunch of books in the capitalist mainframe is about as Western mainstream as you can get.

    We wouldn’t have known his name if it weren’t for Hitler and Ayn Rand making it quite clear that they were using/borrowing his main themes regarding power, superman, etc.

    The Nazis are still remembered, and one still comes across the “Oh yeah, that Zarathrustra writer sowed the ideas for Hitler”. Wonder why people still can make that connection? Doesnt really matter if they accurately represented the ideas, the point is, for the longest time, Nietzsche = Hitler was the prism thru which his ideas were viewed.

    Hitler knew the power of propaganda. Leni Riefenstal’s masterpiece, the 1934 “Triumph of the Will”, with its themes such as the ‘Will to Power’; ‘Superman’, the ultimate leader that comes along and brings forth the dawn and clarity out from the darkness and confusion. Sorry, but clearly he was consciously channelling some of Nietzsche’s ideas, or at least those that fit his purpose. The point is, he made use of his theories. And after all, to Hitler, Nietzsche was German and a recent literary intellectual who was useful to his regime.

    Martin Heidegger, Professor at Freiburg University, who also was a Nietzsche admirer, and one of the post-war’s leaders of existential thought, was an avid Nazi party supporter, as were many of the college professors and well educated class of Germany during the 20’s and 30’s and they would’ve been well familiar with Nietzsche’s ideas as well.

    Question for all: We automatically assume that Nietzsche, pre-madness period, would’ve rejected Hitler and his ultimate aims on running Germany. Since Nietzsche was an individual and one who couldn’t have been pigeon holed into any set ‘bad/good’ paradigm regarding morality (at least publicly), who is to really say, outside of holding a seance and asking Friederick himself, if perhaps he wouldn’t have endorsed Hitler for using of his ideas? Perhaps he would’ve asked to help define them more clearly for he regime.

    We really don’t know one way or the other. In hindsight, we certainly HOPE that he wouldn’t have wanted his ideas associated with Nazism (and its usage of Superman, will to power, the strong vs the weak, etc) but we really don’t know. It may never be proven one way or the other.

    What we DO know, is that the Nazis consciously made use of his ideas (as did Rand) in their outlook, propaganda, etc. Hitler made that very clear, particularly in Triumph of the Will. Like it or not, these two, Ayn Rand and the Nazis consciously borrowed his themes and brought them into the mainstream. They certainly had enough reasons for believing they were accurately representing enough of his work that it would fit within their paradigms.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    Except that they didn't have enough reasons because they mis-read or more likely failed to read or just skipped over much of his writings that were antithetical to their ideology.
  101. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve,

    You recently had a post about the 50th anniversary of the 6 day war. Now the NY Times has an op-ed in which they blame Russia (USSR) for that conflict.

    On June 10, the Soviet Union broke off diplomatic relations with Israel. Eight days later, a ship docked at Haifa and took aboard the embassy’s contents, as well as the staff, including the K.G.B. station. A minute after they vacated the building, Shin Bet operatives broke in and found that the K.G.B. had “not left anything behind,” according to Mr. Merhav. “I realized that an era had ended,” he said, but he reckoned that “the Middle East is far too important to them. They’ll be back.”

    He was right. Russia is back, again playing a destructive, diabolical role in world politics. The technology for spreading disinformation and the use of that fake fact to spread friction and discord, to deceive and to menace, may have changed, but the mind-set has remained the same. With an old K.G.B. hand, Vladimir Putin, at the helm, Russia still sees Active Measures as a legitimate means of closing the gap between Russia and the West, and increasing Moscow’s influence across the globe — including in the Middle East.

    The difference between June 1967 and today is that now they seem to be doing pretty well.

  102. I was watching an episode of “DC Legends of Tomorrow” and one of the characters says: “I’ve become the Wernher von Braun of robots!” Another character then goes on to explain how he invented the V-2 rocket and used slave labor. Our heroes of yesterday are just being trashed by the communist youth that have taken over the entire industrial-cultural complex.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Another character then goes on to explain how he invented the V-2 rocket and used slave labor.

     

    What would Nietzsche say about that? Slave morality.

    Thank you slaves
  103. Sam says:

    This article and comment thread has been quite enlightening on both Nietzche as well as a host of related and not so related topics like the rehabilitation of Lovecraft. Great stuff.

    As to Nietzsche I can only contribute what I heard/read from the great orator and thinker Jonathan Bowden. Bowden saw Nietzsche as in the middle of the existentialist spectrum with Sartre and others on the left and Heidegger as a right wing existentialist:

    Now, Nietzsche’s position is that there is a prior, there is an essence, but Nietzsche is a partial to semi-absolute existential thinker. Because Nietzsche’s contribution to modernity and to modern intellectual thinking is there may be things which may be prior, but we don’t know what they are, and we have to test them through struggle, through life, through will and purposiveness, and various levels of what he called Will to Power which he believed was the basis of all lived existence.

    Nietzsche would say, “There is a truth but I don’t know it yet.” There is a degree to which ontological circumstances cannot be proved but are not rendered prior meaningless, which is why Nietzsche approaches nihilism, the belief that there is no purpose and no values and no constraints and no morals that aren’t purely human, and that there is nothing outside. Which, of course, makes it very difficult to run any sort of a civilization because there are no lines.

    And Nietzsche stands halfway between what you might call this existential Leftist praxis and Heidegger. Nietzsche’s become extremely fashionable on the Left in the last thirty years and there’s lots of post-modernist books by people like Deleuze and Guattari, and these sorts of people, who love the element of Nietzsche that tears down—“I come as a destroyer!”—because in order to create you’ve got to destroy first, you’ve got to level off a bit. There’s ruins around you, so you give them a bit of a push.

    And not a fan of Darwinism either:

    All of Nietzsche’s thinking before Zarathustra, when he begins to vouchsafe his own view, if you like, is largely a tearing down: a tearing down of the normative nature of ethics in The Genealogy of Morals; tearing down of the idea of truth itself; an erection of science in works like The Dawn or The Joyful Wisdom/The Gay Science; and then a tearing down of the idea of science; a playing up of certain Darwinian and evolutionary ideas which Nietzsche’s actually quite suspicious of because, he doesn’t think that life and circumstances are linear at all, he believes they’re circular and everything that was comes back again. He thinks that Darwinists are cretinous materialists and shallow optimists. Look at people around you. Are they progressing and moving upwards or are they just dullards led by a few people at the top who manipulate them?

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/martin-heidegger/

    • Replies: @guest
    I was quite stricken with Bowden's book Western Civilization Bites Back, which ended up being I think just a collection of transcripts of speeches. I've also read prepared writing by him, and it wasn't nearly as good. Some guys got the gift of gab rather than the gift of pen.
  104. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But he was picked up by the Nazis and later Rand (as you rightly observed, I had it the other way round). Rand's fullest development of Nietzsche's ideas were in her classic tome, Atlas Shrugged, which was one of the biggest best sellers of the 20th century. Selling a whole bunch of books in the capitalist mainframe is about as Western mainstream as you can get.

    We wouldn't have known his name if it weren't for Hitler and Ayn Rand making it quite clear that they were using/borrowing his main themes regarding power, superman, etc.

    The Nazis are still remembered, and one still comes across the "Oh yeah, that Zarathrustra writer sowed the ideas for Hitler". Wonder why people still can make that connection? Doesnt really matter if they accurately represented the ideas, the point is, for the longest time, Nietzsche = Hitler was the prism thru which his ideas were viewed.

    Hitler knew the power of propaganda. Leni Riefenstal's masterpiece, the 1934 "Triumph of the Will", with its themes such as the 'Will to Power'; 'Superman', the ultimate leader that comes along and brings forth the dawn and clarity out from the darkness and confusion. Sorry, but clearly he was consciously channelling some of Nietzsche's ideas, or at least those that fit his purpose. The point is, he made use of his theories. And after all, to Hitler, Nietzsche was German and a recent literary intellectual who was useful to his regime.


    Martin Heidegger, Professor at Freiburg University, who also was a Nietzsche admirer, and one of the post-war's leaders of existential thought, was an avid Nazi party supporter, as were many of the college professors and well educated class of Germany during the 20's and 30's and they would've been well familiar with Nietzsche's ideas as well.

    Question for all: We automatically assume that Nietzsche, pre-madness period, would've rejected Hitler and his ultimate aims on running Germany. Since Nietzsche was an individual and one who couldn't have been pigeon holed into any set 'bad/good' paradigm regarding morality (at least publicly), who is to really say, outside of holding a seance and asking Friederick himself, if perhaps he wouldn't have endorsed Hitler for using of his ideas? Perhaps he would've asked to help define them more clearly for he regime.

    We really don't know one way or the other. In hindsight, we certainly HOPE that he wouldn't have wanted his ideas associated with Nazism (and its usage of Superman, will to power, the strong vs the weak, etc) but we really don't know. It may never be proven one way or the other.

    What we DO know, is that the Nazis consciously made use of his ideas (as did Rand) in their outlook, propaganda, etc. Hitler made that very clear, particularly in Triumph of the Will. Like it or not, these two, Ayn Rand and the Nazis consciously borrowed his themes and brought them into the mainstream. They certainly had enough reasons for believing they were accurately representing enough of his work that it would fit within their paradigms.

    Except that they didn’t have enough reasons because they mis-read or more likely failed to read or just skipped over much of his writings that were antithetical to their ideology.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    My point was that they had enough reasons to use/borrow/shorthand his main themes to fit their own purposes, and for several decades it was assumed that Nietzsche sowed the seeds for Hitlerism. This was taught in high school in a lit. class on Nietzsche, which is where I first became acquainted with Zarathrustra.

    Hitler had the reason of wanting to ground his lust for power into a 'moral' or 'ethical' base, he even tried to use historical determinism to make it appear that his views had long been the norm and the time had come to implement them. There was enough truthiness in Nietzsche's ideas to make this seem reasonable. In his eyes, this was all the reason he needed. In Atlas Shrugged, the rugged Superman-esque leader was to make the world a better place thru the force of his will, eschewing the weak rabble classes, etc, etc. Rand's Objectivist ideology was clearly based in part on Nietzsche's writings (and she commented it was so over the years).

    While Nietzsche wasn't anti-semitic per se (or rather wasn't as anti-semitic compared to others of his time) he certainly wasn't philo-semitic, and enough of his other ideas (Will to power'; the coming of a strong man leader ; ec.) contained enough seeds that allowed Hitler to make use of them.

    And the question remains: We don't really know one way or the other how Nietzsche would've reacted with the Nazis using his ideas to justify their power. Perhaps he would've recoiled in horror, or maybe, just maybe, he would've initially thought it interesting that a major government was attempting to base its power on his writings and offered his services to the government. Remember, some of Nazism's biggest supporters in Germany were in the Universities, professors who would certainly have been well familiar with Nietzsche's writings.
  105. Steve: I appreciate your eclectic interests, such as segueing into Nietzsche & illness, which leads to illness in general, which leads to Nietzsche and current progressives. Very unpredictable, why I check isteve a lot.

  106. What woul Nietzsche say about the London Met’s obsession with rooting out hate thinking rather than terrorism?

  107. “In Europe Nietzsche’s gospel of desperation, the beyond-law-man, etc., has deeply influenced the Paris apache, the Italian Futurist litterateur, the Russian revolutionary. Nietzsche’s books are full of seductions and sugar-plums. They have made ‘aristocrats’ of people who would otherwise have been only mild snobs or meddlesome prigs; as much as, if not more than, other writings, they have made ‘expropriators’ of what would otherwise merely have been Arsène Lupins : and they have made an Over-man of every vulgarly energetic grocer in Europe.” – Wyndham Lewis

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Nicely put Mr. Lewis.
  108. @Lot

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).
     
    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read. Das Kapital is in the same awful style. But Marx's letters are witty and enjoyable, and The Communist Manifesto I think ranks at up near the top right below Common Sense for propaganda prose quality. Both the first and last paragraphs have become cliches.


    A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.



    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!
     
    This is good too:

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

    Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    ...

    The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
     

    Hear, hear! Also this:

    Constant revolutionizing of production, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air …

  109. @syonredux

    Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons.
     
    They're certainly trying to, though. Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award. Then there's the recent spate of fiction meant to "correct" HPL's un-PC attitudes : Lovecraft Country, The Ballad of Black Tom, etc Jordan Peele's even going to turn Lovecraft Country into a TV series....

    Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award.

    The recent controversies surrounding literary awards such as WFA and the Hugo are pretty funny examples of O’Sullivan’s Law.

  110. @res

    What could possibly be the reason for this?
     
    Racism!

    What is interesting about that article is that 2x is much less than the difference for most of the FBI criminal statistics offending rates.

    I'm guessing that happens because the military is selective?

    the military is selective

    lol

    • Replies: @JerryC
    You laugh, but it is true that a large percentage of the US black population can't meet the entrance requirements to enlist in the Army.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    And getting less selective by the day. Apparently congress is trying another amnesty by linking it to military service. Why would congress want a military with a significant foreign membership? That doesn't sound good to me.
    , @res


    the military is selective
     
    lol
     
    The Army has the lowest ASVAB/AFQT minimum score at 31
    https://asvabbootcamp.com/blog/asvab-scores-2017/

    Per this page that translates to an IQ of 94
    http://differing.blogspot.com/2007/05/military-and-iq-redux.html

    The average African American IQ is typically quoted as 85.

    Therefore the Army minimum threshold excludes blacks who are less than 0.6 SD above average in SD (and the other service thresholds are higher).

    Sounds selective to me for the purposes of this discussion.
  111. @BB753
    Sorry, I meant "Having no formal training in philosophy but rather in classical philology" but autorrect thought it knew better than me!

    Hell, auto correct, lol!

  112. He’s still the greatest Green Bay Packer .

  113. @syonredux

    Perhaps you mean “less prone to, less given to, less vulnerable to the weakness for verbosity, wordiness, and sesquipedalianism for which German philosophers notorious are”.

    They certainly infected American academics, didn’t they?
     
    Indeed.....Although, nowadays the bad prose virus comes from France: Lacan, Derrida, etc. Reading those fellows, it's hard to believe that French lit used to be famous for its lucidity....

    Conversation became tergiversation.

  114. @AaronB
    Achilles, that was a very perceptive comment.

    In retrospect, its easy to see N as basically about emotional appeal and a creature of his times -

    1) God is dead, metaphysics was a foolish dream, there is nothing but materialism.
    2) You now get to invent your own values out of thin air. All is relativism.
    3) But not really, you ought to prefer master morality and power.
    4) So there is an objective standard after all! Yay!
    5) This objective standard is called "Life" and "Power".
    6) But it isn't a metaphysical principle. Even if it functions exactly like one. Its completely different. You're an idiot if you don't see this.
    7) It isn't God. Even if it functions like the metaphysical basis for values like God did. Its completely different. Only a decadent modern weakling cannot see this.
    8) All life strives for power, it seems to me. So I decided to make life and power the basis for my values. But this isn't the "naturalistic" fallacy. Oh no. Not at all. You're probably too stupid to see this, because you're decadent.

    N really had emotional appeal to people who wanted religion and naturalism together, so it was agreed to consider the above "profound".

    Oh, and it isn't surprising that Jews liked N - N was an elitist materialist who worshiped power - this is basically Jewish metaphysics.

    Nice summary.

    I’ll say this for Nietzsche, however, as we learned from his tightrope walker parable, at least he would give us a decent burial in the hollow of a tree and say a few words over us.

    And, probably, quite a few words!

  115. @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/872118209100390401

    Not quite of-topic, since Nietzsche took lots of opium in the 1880ies. Just have a look at the Genealogy of Morals.

  116. @ATX Hipster

    the military is selective
     
    lol

    You laugh, but it is true that a large percentage of the US black population can’t meet the entrance requirements to enlist in the Army.

  117. @German_reader
    The only people I've ever read who make a big deal of Nietzsche are Christians who go on about how finally there's an anti-Christian thinker who knows what the endpoint of a rejection of Christianity is (nihilism, Nazism, cult of power, despair...in any case something really bad!).
    Or maybe alt-right weirdoes are also into him (some of them even pretend to read Heidegger after all).

    Of course, the German educational apparatus cannot teach Nietzsche’s importance. It’s too busy teaching refugees techniques to sleep with German women.

  118. @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/872118209100390401

    Maximum debt, heroin, suicide is the most rational lifestyle for the utilitarian. I always laugh when I read sci fi or less wrong nerds pondering the social and politications implications of a future in which getting “wireheaded” is possible, when that option is already quite open to people

  119. @attilathehen
    From reading Mencken, I notice that he's very anti-WASP. He was of German ancestry. He was against white Southern holy roller type Christianity, but had respect for the RCC Latin rite mass (the one during his time).

    He also wrote that the way to deal with white Southern holy rollers was for Southern blacks to convert to Islam.

    But when dealing with Nietszche and Mencken today, whether they are anti-Semites, anti-black doesn't really matter because their beliefs would not stand today as we now know about IQ/race differences.

    Their writings have to be viewed within the time they wrote (a white Christian world), subjected to IQ/race science of today and seen as interesting historically, but not relevant anymore.

    If Mencken were alive today, what would he think of the RCC? If Nietszche were alive today what would he think of Islam? We are living in a different world and need to look at these writers from a pre-1968 and new 21st century perspective of IQ/race.

    “He was against white Southern holy roller type Christianity”

    Yes, as caricatured in Elmer Gantry. Or, in my lifetime, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
    The specter of Evangelism, ever-ready to establish a theocracy or whatever, haunts the left. Which is why Mencken still gets to be a popular figure, despite his many sins against the Current Year.

    Well, that and his denigration of traditional America and his contempt for: middle-class Babbittism, the country as opposed to the city, middle-brow culture, etc. For any number of opinions that still resonate with the left.

  120. Abe says: • Website
    @SFG
    No literary people took Lovecraft seriously until the generation of humanities types reared on nerd culture started hitting the academy. Unfortunately that also meant they had to bring their politics into it. The computer nerds who loved him in the 80s and 90s didn't care if he was racist and, anyway, Cthulhu's hardly racist; he's going to eat everyone regardless of their color. It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate). Though I still think they'll win, or there will be right-wing and left-wing nerd culture, which is already starting to happen (compare Steven Universe and anime fandom).

    Cthulhu’s hardly racist; he’s going to eat everyone regardless of their color.

    One retrospectively-telling sign of how our culture came to be as cucked as it is was when shock-rocker Marilyn Manson (love his comeback, BTW, in his new “Lady Gaga” guise) all the way back in the 90’s sang: “Ain’t no time to discriminate / Hate every [email protected]@@@er in you way!”

    ‘So, yes, as you can plainly see I’m a gender-bendin’ anti-Christ superstar who roasts babies alive and eats their skin as crackling. But, oh God, no- I’m not racist or anything like that. Whatever gave you that idea? The you could even imagine something like that of me! Oh God, I think I’m going to be sick…’

  121. @guest
    His anti-semitism or lackthereof is neither here nor there regarding Nietzsche's popularity. Do you know how many Big Names despised Jews? Or blacks, or gays, or the protected group du jour? Like all of them.

    Just recently, they started publicizing the fact that Mencken was anti-semitic. Not sure why, but he wasn't unpersoned as a result. He's still semi-respectable, because he's useful against Christianity and the booboosie. Martin Luther is a name you can bring up in polite conversation, though not far back people were writing books tracing the Holocaust back to him. Wagner is always coming in and out of acceptability.

    They're always holding back, pushing forward, taking away and putting back again the stigmata of anti-semitism at their convenience. It hardly matters whether Nietzsche really was anti-semitic or not, either. Because they could just say he was, and what's the difference? It worked for a damn long time, if only by implication.

    Mencken’s antisemitism is forgiven because he disliked most everyone.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Mencken’s antisemitism is forgiven because he disliked most everyone.
     
    He really, really liked Germans and Germany:

    He proudly proclaimed in his columns for the Baltimore Sun papers that, in the battle between autocracy and democracy, he wanted to see democracy go down. Mencken was enamored not only of the Kaiser's autocratic rule, but with "the whole war machine." He mocked Allied outrage over German killings of Belgian civilians, as well as the sinking of the S.S. Lusitania, which brought the death of 124 Americans. Hobson tells us that he advised Theodore Dreiser, a fellow German-American, that "there can never be any compromise in future men of German blood and the common run of 'good,' 'right thinking' Americans. We must stand against them forever, and do what damage we can do to them, and to their tin-pot democracy."

    During the course of the war he was censored by the Sunpapers, but wrote three revealing articles for the Atlantic. The first, "The Mailed Fist and Its Prophet," celebrated Nietzsche as the inspiration for the new Germany, which was "contemptuous of weakness." Germany, as he admired it, was a "hard" nation with no patience for politics because it was governed by the superior men of its "superbly efficient ruling caste." "Germany," he concluded, "becomes Nietzsche; Nietzsche becomes Germany." Mencken approvingly quotes Nietzsche to the effect that "the weak and the botched must perish. . . . I tell you that a good war hallows every cause."

    The second Atlantic article, based on Mencken's own reporting from the Eastern front in 1917, was a piece of hero worship that exalted General Erich Ludendorff as Germany's "national messiah." Mencken treasured the kaiser, but he thought Ludendorff was worth "40 Kaisers," and was the man to lead German Kultur in its total war against Anglo-Saxon civilization. According to Mencken, the general's greatness was to be found in the way that he had stamped out people's individuality so that "the whole energy of the German people [could] be concentrated on the war."

    The third, and most intriguing, essay--"After Germany's Conquest of the United States"--talked about the benefits to America of being ruled by the hard men of a superior Kultur. Known only because of the exchange of letters between Mencken and the editor of the Atlantic, the article was withdrawn and never published. Interestingly, despite Mencken's extraordinary efforts to document his own life, the manuscript, according to Vincent Fitzpatrick, curator of the Mencken collection, cannot be found. Mencken's reputation, it seems, was saved by wartime self-censorship--in Boston, home of the Atlantic.

    Mencken had genuine cause for bitterness during World War I, when the excesses of zealous Americanism left him fearful for the safety of his family. But neither Rodgers nor his other biographers have noted the context of that hostility. While Mencken was touting the genius of Teutonic militarism, German saboteurs blew up the munitions depot at Black Tom Island off Manhattan. That strike, until 9/11 the most violent action by a hostile force in the history of the city of New York, caused $40 million of damage, sinking the island and its contents into the sea. The Kaiser's plans to invade America might never have come off, but Germany plotted to bring Mexico into the war against the United States.

    The Sage of Baltimore needs to be placed in a broader intellectual context. The man who is still selectively celebrated by people like Rodgers, as if he were nothing more or less than an American iconoclast, was one of a number of anti democratic thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Some of them, like D.H. Lawrence, were proto-fascists; others, like H.G. Wells, were apologists for Stalin. But they all denounced democracy in the name of vitalism, eugenics, and a caste system run by an elite of superior men.
     
    His primary issue with Americans was that they weren't German. He's pretty big among American intellectuals because they share a common assumption, that the American hoi polloi aren't good enough for them - they're not properly appreciative of the pearls of wisdom cranked out by deep thinkers like Mencken.
  122. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "(To be precise, however, Nietzsche’s objection to Christianity was not that some Christians had owned slaves, but that a lot of Christians had been slaves. Christianity, to Nietzsche, was a contemptible “slave morality.”)"

    Don't suppose it ever occurred to Nietzsche that while it's undoubtedly true that the leaders of the pagan religions from the Greco-Roman world which he seemed to hold in high regard may have indeed owned slaves, a lot of ordinary men/even slaves of classic antiquity worshipped the same gods as well. It's like, sure, everyone would like to focus on the top 1% (leaders; warriors; thinkers; etc), but what happens to the other 99%?

    Fact remains that Nietzsche's ideas found full acceptance first among Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged is pure homage to Zarathrustra) and the Nazis. If anything, its likely that Hitler used Nietzsche's ideas in such a way to fit his racial theories and give the government a "moral" or philosophical basis for existence.

    The Foutainhead is closer, but Rand was negative about Nietzsche.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Rand was kind of like Larry Auster. The closer she came to agreeing with somebody, the more furiously she denounced his deviations from her orthodoxy.

    *The Fountainhead* is so Nietzschean that it could hardly be more Nietzschean.
  123. @yaqub the mad scientist
    Good points. Some other reasons for his popularity:

    He was no anti-Semite. His last books make that pretty clear.

    He's damn funny when he wants to be. His aphorisms really can bring out the LOL's.

    He brought about some compelling rethinkings of the Classical era.

    Unlike Derrida's sludge, Nietzsche's deconstruction- which he invented- is concise and says a lot with a little.

    Kauffman did a lot to make him accessible.

    His cranky stuff is almost endearing. You really get the portrait of a man thinking-a literary shading that makes his writing more human.

    Yes a lot of modern leftist crit/deconstructionist theory comes from Fred N. So does the focus on “power relations.”

    You can agree with his classical v slave morality analysis while having a preference for either one.

  124. @Achilles

    This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as “rubbish” seems unworthy of serious men.
     
    Nietzschean atheistic existentialism is a dead end substantively, but yes, to your point certainly we should take the effects of Nietzschean thinking seriously.

    But let's go back to Kant, which was the source of the problem, lying in an unproven assertion on his part.

    Before Nietzsche with his melodramatic mournfulness declared God dead, Kant had placed God beyond the phenonemal realm, into the noumenal realm as he defined it where we can have no sense or perception of God.

    But the notion that we can have no sense or perception of God was simply an assertion. It was not proven by Kant. People who liked the assertion ran with it, and treated it as if it were some proven principle of science.

    Kant's assertion may agree with your own subjective experience. You may not perceive a connection to God. People in your own circles of contacts may not. But that does not mean your neighbor does not. Or that hundreds of millions of people do not or that hundreds of millions of people in the past did not perceive a connection to God that is or was in fact reality.

    To take an analogy, you may be colorblind. Perhaps other people whose opinions you respect are also colorblind. All of you collectively may come to the conclusion that humans do not perceive color. It may seem a reasonable and logical conclusion to you. But it would not be correct.

    You say, "Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God." You claim to know this was a pretension on the part of Moses. How do you know this? Were you there? Were you standing next to Moses and saying to Moses, "Ah, I see the problem. There is a gas vent in the ground here right behind this bush and the sun's rays have sparked a bit of tinder causing a natural flare, giving the appearance of a burning bush?"

    Notwithstanding the neat distinction by Kant between noumenal and phenomenal, we don't even really know the extent to which and how we perceive phenomena. What we suppose is in the noumenal realm may in reality be in the phenomenal realm.

    Is there a way for information to be communicated directly into our consciousness other than through our eyes, ears and other conventionally-recognized senses? This cannot be, or at least has not been, excluded scientifically. Relativity was a very clever insight on Einstein's part. Perhaps some future clever thinker and scientist will conceive a scientific approach to detecting such activity. Would Kant have said this is impossible?

    To return to Neitzsche, he was not the first to identify the problem. His claimed central insight had already been recorded 3,000 years earlier: "Where there is no vision the people perish," wrote the writer of Proverbs 29:18. The word "vision" here refers to divine revelation.

    If atheistic existentialists had any sense of enlightened self-interest, they would ally with "Crusader Christians" as some of them call us to reestablish and defend the foundations of Western Civilization.

    In truth, it was not the pre-Christian Roman Empire that provided the foundation of what became Western Civilization at its stunningly glorious height. The Roman Empire provided the architecture, as it were. As it expanded beyond its particular tribal origin and gods, the pre-Christian Roman Republic and then Empire evolved into little more than a pirate band writ large, running a kind of ponzi scheme of conquest that always required great amounts of new agricultural land and slaves or conquered nations to convert into giant tax farms in order to pay and maintain its forces of conquest and energize and supply its metropolis and outposts.

    Beyond the initial Roman Empire-derived structure, the moral content of Western Civilization was supplied by Christianity. One of the distinguishing features of Christianity is that proselytization must be by peaceful preaching (yes, sometimes honored in the breach by those claiming its name).

    This is what gave room for so much tolerance in Western society and modeled scientific debate and progress. Those who do not respond to proselytization are not infidels who must be put to the sword or enslaved, as in Islam. But when those tolerated become the intolerant and turn their guns on the foundation in order to destroy it, the intolerant must no longer be tolerated lest the foundations be destroyed.

    I don’t actually know much about Nietzsche’s intellectual development, but I don’t envy philosophers of his stripe growing up around that time. Victorian Idealism is a sickening affair. All this empty, blowhardy post-Christian substitute for Christian feeling without God. It’s surprising more people didn’t rise up and say forget about all that stuffiness, and let’s have the fun, old kind of transcendence out in the open air. You know, with Blond Beasts roaming the prairie, ravishing maidens, eating wolves’ hearts.

    Instead, we got weird, sickly virgins shut up in ivory towers babbling on for hundreds of pages about phenomena. How tempting it must have been to chuck out God, traditional morality, and even truth, listening to those blowhards. But, of course, there were other routes available. Schopenhauer, who’s superior in every way to Nietzsche except readability, ended in pessimism, which wouldn’t do for Nietzsche. But he saw the human (all too human) condition more clearly, and wasn’t so childish. I don’t see much point in being an enfant terrible. Not in the adult world of metaphysics.

    The main thing, though, is that Nietzsche didn’t really go so radical. Or he did, but only in certain directions. Some roots he pulled out violently, others he didn’t think of touching. I can see wanting to go beyond Kant, beyond Christianity, even, to escape the suffocating trap. But in going back thousands of years, he still stayed under Kant’s thumb. It was Kant, after all, who convinced Western philosophy forevermore that we can’t know anything. (Or we can’t know anything “in itself,” which is the same thing.) Nietzsche is still a Victorian Idealist, if a bratty one.

    Hey, how about you just chuck out Idealism? Who needs it?

    • Replies: @AaronB

    Schopenhauer, who’s superior in every way to Nietzsche except readability, ended in pessimism, which wouldn’t do for Nietzsche. But he saw the human (all too human) condition more clearly, and wasn’t so childish.
     
    Very, very true. After reading Nietzsche, I didn't read Schop for a long time as supposedly N had surpassed him in so many ways, according to Kaufmann. What a revelation finally reading Schop!

    Entire passages in N read like he just ripped them off of Schop, and changed the value judgement.

    However, I would say that Schop is extremely clear and readable and quite delightful, its just that his subject matter - metaphysics - is necessarily more complex than N's. But N had "transcended" metaphysics, of course. And N always strove for the cheap thrill, excitement, over depth.
  125. @Absent Professor
    Nietzsche's rehabilitation by the Left was already an accomplished fact 30 years ago when Allan Bloom discussed the phenomenon in "The Closing of the American Mind." Although Bloom's discussion of the fate of the academy is largely remembered today for its fogeyish critique of Rock and Roll, his analysis of academic intellectual trends is largely accurate and his predictions are often spot on.

    As Bloom points out, the academic Left largely abandoned Marxian economic analysis in the 1960s in favor of trekking along roads laid down by Nietzsche. They've been going full bore ever since. This is part of the reason why the collapse of the Soviet Union meant exactly nothing to academics - none of them are doctrinaire Marxists anymore, and the ones who bother "identifying" as such do so for shock value (or out of pure ignorance, which is not in short supply in the academy these days).

    There are many reasons for this and they're complex and interesting to investigate for those so inclined. Since iSteve readers trend toward numbers guys and hopeless autistics I imagine few are going to be inclined this way. For the sake of demonstration, I will point out a singularly unhelpful approach taken by Mr. Achilles above. He writes the following:

    "Nietzsche is rubbish. It’s just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world (“you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil”).

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah."

    Of course, Nietzsche himself would agree completely about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. He himself argues that men who grow up in a world informed by science are incapable by and large of believing in revelations from God. We are too aware of the history of texts and textual transmission, the facts of human love for power, the realities of manipulation, and the all-too-human qualities which anyone can see in purportedly divine texts to believe in divine revelation with the simplicity of a first century Christian. The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore? Our society relies on revelation at multiple levels and in ways we are just beginning to understand. To remove that underpinning is to expose the whole edifice to problems and contradictions it may be unable to survive. On some level, as Nietzsche says, we must make up some new gods to support the structure - but men do not bow down to purely human idols. Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God because no one would obey him otherwise. So, how do we create something that has the power of a deity to command respect and obedience and belief? This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as "rubbish" seems unworthy of serious men.

    To return to the Left and Nietzsche: much of the utopian nonsense of modern Leftism derives from a Nietzsche-inspired vision of a socially constructed future utopia (rather than a Marxist vision of a classless society). The more you explore leftist thought the more Nietzschean elements you find in it. Unfortunately, intellectual influences aren't like chemistry, where elements can be distinguished within a compound; it works more like a stew, where you can identify certain flavors but can't isolate them from the mix anymore.

    As for Bloom's early observation on this phenomenon, the mind which was closing in 1987 is in 2017 completely shut: campus protests of the last two years demonstrate this to perfection. At least the kids' minds will be full of safe spaces!

    Nietzsche was not the first to confront that problem, nor is his solution in the top million answers.

  126. Abe says: • Website
    @SFG
    No literary people took Lovecraft seriously until the generation of humanities types reared on nerd culture started hitting the academy. Unfortunately that also meant they had to bring their politics into it. The computer nerds who loved him in the 80s and 90s didn't care if he was racist and, anyway, Cthulhu's hardly racist; he's going to eat everyone regardless of their color. It took humanities types to convict him based on his private letters (there were a few racist words in a few stories but most of it was about monsters) and the idea that even being afraid of the Other is racist.

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate). Though I still think they'll win, or there will be right-wing and left-wing nerd culture, which is already starting to happen (compare Steven Universe and anime fandom).

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate).

    We need a clever term for this pronto! One of my old classmate fake Facebook friends once posted some crap about LEGO being disrespectful to womyn. Something about how girls like to build trucks and spaceships just like boys do and that having a separate product line (LEGO FRIENDS) for the XX chromosome set was demeaning or something. There are maybe like 9 women in this country who like LEGO’s past the age of 10, and I’m married to one of them. There are way more who pretend to like LEGO’s so they can be be part of a male-skewed social scene where they are guaranteed to be the center of attention, and a substantial subset of those get into it knowing full-well there is going to be a lot more rewarding mainstream attention (and perhaps money) the moment they turn on their erstwhile shy, Fedora-clad admirers and denounce them to SLATE/SALON for their ‘misogyny’, ‘toxic bro-itude’, and general ‘creepiness’.

    The race version of this works almost exactly the same way, except the black guy who likes STAR TREK or GAME OF THRONES or creative anachronism or whatever, retells how awful it was having everyone want him to be their new black best friend, or that the Lovecraft or Tolkien books they’d been reading with seeming pleasure all these years was really a burning hell of non-stop micro and macro-agressions that felt like a series of punches to the gut.

    So what should we call this? Nerd milking? Or maybe these intrudes are really Trojan Dorks?

    • Replies: @guest
    The general term is Convergence. The left wants to converge everything, because they're totalitarians. They do it a piece at a time, often via women. Because women are social conformists and groupthinkers, by and large.

    It's been hard to get women into nerd culture, because it's full of nerds. They like to be where the attractive men are.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    Social Justice Voyeurs?
  127. @Sam
    This article and comment thread has been quite enlightening on both Nietzche as well as a host of related and not so related topics like the rehabilitation of Lovecraft. Great stuff.

    As to Nietzsche I can only contribute what I heard/read from the great orator and thinker Jonathan Bowden. Bowden saw Nietzsche as in the middle of the existentialist spectrum with Sartre and others on the left and Heidegger as a right wing existentialist:


    Now, Nietzsche’s position is that there is a prior, there is an essence, but Nietzsche is a partial to semi-absolute existential thinker. Because Nietzsche’s contribution to modernity and to modern intellectual thinking is there may be things which may be prior, but we don’t know what they are, and we have to test them through struggle, through life, through will and purposiveness, and various levels of what he called Will to Power which he believed was the basis of all lived existence.
    ...
    Nietzsche would say, “There is a truth but I don’t know it yet.” There is a degree to which ontological circumstances cannot be proved but are not rendered prior meaningless, which is why Nietzsche approaches nihilism, the belief that there is no purpose and no values and no constraints and no morals that aren’t purely human, and that there is nothing outside. Which, of course, makes it very difficult to run any sort of a civilization because there are no lines.

    And Nietzsche stands halfway between what you might call this existential Leftist praxis and Heidegger. Nietzsche’s become extremely fashionable on the Left in the last thirty years and there’s lots of post-modernist books by people like Deleuze and Guattari, and these sorts of people, who love the element of Nietzsche that tears down—“I come as a destroyer!”—because in order to create you’ve got to destroy first, you’ve got to level off a bit. There’s ruins around you, so you give them a bit of a push.

     

    And not a fan of Darwinism either:

    All of Nietzsche’s thinking before Zarathustra, when he begins to vouchsafe his own view, if you like, is largely a tearing down: a tearing down of the normative nature of ethics in The Genealogy of Morals; tearing down of the idea of truth itself; an erection of science in works like The Dawn or The Joyful Wisdom/The Gay Science; and then a tearing down of the idea of science; a playing up of certain Darwinian and evolutionary ideas which Nietzsche’s actually quite suspicious of because, he doesn’t think that life and circumstances are linear at all, he believes they’re circular and everything that was comes back again. He thinks that Darwinists are cretinous materialists and shallow optimists. Look at people around you. Are they progressing and moving upwards or are they just dullards led by a few people at the top who manipulate them?
     
    https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/martin-heidegger/

    I was quite stricken with Bowden’s book Western Civilization Bites Back, which ended up being I think just a collection of transcripts of speeches. I’ve also read prepared writing by him, and it wasn’t nearly as good. Some guys got the gift of gab rather than the gift of pen.

  128. @BenKenobi

    Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.
     
    That's because Nietzsche writes in pretty intense language - "the dead mediocrity of the masses" for example is heavy stuff. It easily lends itself to a ruthless mind.

    It also lends itself easily to comedy. From the classic Onion:

    http://www.theonion.com/article/new-nietzschean-diet-lets-you-eat-whatever-you-fea-1703

    It starts slow but picks up steam

    Kansas City’s John Mencken started the diet in January. He lost 35 pounds, eight inches from his waistline, and many of his slave moralities.

  129. He’s a lot esaier to read than Kant or Hegel because he had a lot less to say.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    There's a certain sort of German who can never quite believe that anything he can understand can possibly be profound. Such Germans actually admire the scribblings of Hegel - and even non-entities like Habermas! - precisely because they can't understand a word of it.
  130. Has anyone else read Comey’s prepared remarks for Congress yet?

    Full Text: James Comey’s Prepared Remarks for His Congressional Testimony

    Former CIA Director Doesn’t See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Comey Testimony

    Complete nothingburger.

    Comey just doesn’t seem very bright. Actually, he seems like an asshat. He manages to be both treacherous, AND boring. That’s not easy to do. His testimony makes him look bad, not Trump. He manages to repeatedly show an inability to understand plain English. He forgets the chain of command, when it suits his banal treachery. He manages to remember it again, for the same purpose. He admits he started out documenting Trump right away, and that he didn’t so document Hussein. He shows a fantastical belief in FBI “independence,” and is quite open about his petty skullduggery.

    He comes across like a dull, plodding, suck-up of a schoolboy.

    There is absolutely nothing here. At this point I’d be shocked if there were a scintilla of truth to any of the slander (((Big Media))) has been hurling at Trump 24/7 since the inauguration.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    One way to think about the onslaught of failing accusations against Trump is that it will put him and his people on guard to avoid anything that in any way smells of the illegal henceforth. The point being, these attacks are actually serving as a good vaccination against scandal and, at the greatest extreme, impeachment.

    And I suspect that the opposite was true of the Obama WH. For example, the scandals, yet to be fully exposed, of the likes of Susan Rice and Samantha Power "unmasking" political opponents owe their existence to the utterly uncritical backing the Obama WH received from our shameless press. Why avoid doing such things when one knows the press will never investigate them?

    When the details of these Obama WH perfidies come out, we may very well see a frog march or two.

    A lot of unintended consequences here.

    , @Alden
    I watched some of his testimony. I thought he took too much Zoloft or Celexa or even vicodine to calm down. He seemed very slow and didn't have any concrete answers.
  131. @Abe

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate).
     
    We need a clever term for this pronto! One of my old classmate fake Facebook friends once posted some crap about LEGO being disrespectful to womyn. Something about how girls like to build trucks and spaceships just like boys do and that having a separate product line (LEGO FRIENDS) for the XX chromosome set was demeaning or something. There are maybe like 9 women in this country who like LEGO's past the age of 10, and I'm married to one of them. There are way more who pretend to like LEGO's so they can be be part of a male-skewed social scene where they are guaranteed to be the center of attention, and a substantial subset of those get into it knowing full-well there is going to be a lot more rewarding mainstream attention (and perhaps money) the moment they turn on their erstwhile shy, Fedora-clad admirers and denounce them to SLATE/SALON for their 'misogyny', 'toxic bro-itude', and general 'creepiness'.

    The race version of this works almost exactly the same way, except the black guy who likes STAR TREK or GAME OF THRONES or creative anachronism or whatever, retells how awful it was having everyone want him to be their new black best friend, or that the Lovecraft or Tolkien books they'd been reading with seeming pleasure all these years was really a burning hell of non-stop micro and macro-agressions that felt like a series of punches to the gut.

    So what should we call this? Nerd milking? Or maybe these intrudes are really Trojan Dorks?

    The general term is Convergence. The left wants to converge everything, because they’re totalitarians. They do it a piece at a time, often via women. Because women are social conformists and groupthinkers, by and large.

    It’s been hard to get women into nerd culture, because it’s full of nerds. They like to be where the attractive men are.

  132. @ATX Hipster

    the military is selective
     
    lol

    And getting less selective by the day. Apparently congress is trying another amnesty by linking it to military service. Why would congress want a military with a significant foreign membership? That doesn’t sound good to me.

  133. @Abe

    The World Fantasy Award debacle has to do with the intrusion of SJWs into nerd culture, which is something else entirely and more resisted (viz. Gamergate).
     
    We need a clever term for this pronto! One of my old classmate fake Facebook friends once posted some crap about LEGO being disrespectful to womyn. Something about how girls like to build trucks and spaceships just like boys do and that having a separate product line (LEGO FRIENDS) for the XX chromosome set was demeaning or something. There are maybe like 9 women in this country who like LEGO's past the age of 10, and I'm married to one of them. There are way more who pretend to like LEGO's so they can be be part of a male-skewed social scene where they are guaranteed to be the center of attention, and a substantial subset of those get into it knowing full-well there is going to be a lot more rewarding mainstream attention (and perhaps money) the moment they turn on their erstwhile shy, Fedora-clad admirers and denounce them to SLATE/SALON for their 'misogyny', 'toxic bro-itude', and general 'creepiness'.

    The race version of this works almost exactly the same way, except the black guy who likes STAR TREK or GAME OF THRONES or creative anachronism or whatever, retells how awful it was having everyone want him to be their new black best friend, or that the Lovecraft or Tolkien books they'd been reading with seeming pleasure all these years was really a burning hell of non-stop micro and macro-agressions that felt like a series of punches to the gut.

    So what should we call this? Nerd milking? Or maybe these intrudes are really Trojan Dorks?

    Social Justice Voyeurs?

  134. @syonredux

    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read.
     
    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.Kant's not exactly fun, but he's at least trying to be clear.

    And when you have a reasonable idea who it is that Kant is addressing, and you make an effort to master his jargon, it makes sense. It’s understandable, even if you don’t agree with him. I’m not so sure that’s the case with Hegel. And to me Heidegger is beyond understanding (although there are people who claim to understand him, so there might be something to it).

  135. @blahbahblah
    "In Europe Nietzsche's gospel of desperation, the beyond-law-man, etc., has deeply influenced the Paris apache, the Italian Futurist litterateur, the Russian revolutionary. Nietzsche's books are full of seductions and sugar-plums. They have made 'aristocrats' of people who would otherwise have been only mild snobs or meddlesome prigs; as much as, if not more than, other writings, they have made 'expropriators' of what would otherwise merely have been Arsène Lupins : and they have made an Over-man of every vulgarly energetic grocer in Europe." - Wyndham Lewis

    Nicely put Mr. Lewis.

  136. @Achilles

    This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as “rubbish” seems unworthy of serious men.
     
    Nietzschean atheistic existentialism is a dead end substantively, but yes, to your point certainly we should take the effects of Nietzschean thinking seriously.

    But let's go back to Kant, which was the source of the problem, lying in an unproven assertion on his part.

    Before Nietzsche with his melodramatic mournfulness declared God dead, Kant had placed God beyond the phenonemal realm, into the noumenal realm as he defined it where we can have no sense or perception of God.

    But the notion that we can have no sense or perception of God was simply an assertion. It was not proven by Kant. People who liked the assertion ran with it, and treated it as if it were some proven principle of science.

    Kant's assertion may agree with your own subjective experience. You may not perceive a connection to God. People in your own circles of contacts may not. But that does not mean your neighbor does not. Or that hundreds of millions of people do not or that hundreds of millions of people in the past did not perceive a connection to God that is or was in fact reality.

    To take an analogy, you may be colorblind. Perhaps other people whose opinions you respect are also colorblind. All of you collectively may come to the conclusion that humans do not perceive color. It may seem a reasonable and logical conclusion to you. But it would not be correct.

    You say, "Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God." You claim to know this was a pretension on the part of Moses. How do you know this? Were you there? Were you standing next to Moses and saying to Moses, "Ah, I see the problem. There is a gas vent in the ground here right behind this bush and the sun's rays have sparked a bit of tinder causing a natural flare, giving the appearance of a burning bush?"

    Notwithstanding the neat distinction by Kant between noumenal and phenomenal, we don't even really know the extent to which and how we perceive phenomena. What we suppose is in the noumenal realm may in reality be in the phenomenal realm.

    Is there a way for information to be communicated directly into our consciousness other than through our eyes, ears and other conventionally-recognized senses? This cannot be, or at least has not been, excluded scientifically. Relativity was a very clever insight on Einstein's part. Perhaps some future clever thinker and scientist will conceive a scientific approach to detecting such activity. Would Kant have said this is impossible?

    To return to Neitzsche, he was not the first to identify the problem. His claimed central insight had already been recorded 3,000 years earlier: "Where there is no vision the people perish," wrote the writer of Proverbs 29:18. The word "vision" here refers to divine revelation.

    If atheistic existentialists had any sense of enlightened self-interest, they would ally with "Crusader Christians" as some of them call us to reestablish and defend the foundations of Western Civilization.

    In truth, it was not the pre-Christian Roman Empire that provided the foundation of what became Western Civilization at its stunningly glorious height. The Roman Empire provided the architecture, as it were. As it expanded beyond its particular tribal origin and gods, the pre-Christian Roman Republic and then Empire evolved into little more than a pirate band writ large, running a kind of ponzi scheme of conquest that always required great amounts of new agricultural land and slaves or conquered nations to convert into giant tax farms in order to pay and maintain its forces of conquest and energize and supply its metropolis and outposts.

    Beyond the initial Roman Empire-derived structure, the moral content of Western Civilization was supplied by Christianity. One of the distinguishing features of Christianity is that proselytization must be by peaceful preaching (yes, sometimes honored in the breach by those claiming its name).

    This is what gave room for so much tolerance in Western society and modeled scientific debate and progress. Those who do not respond to proselytization are not infidels who must be put to the sword or enslaved, as in Islam. But when those tolerated become the intolerant and turn their guns on the foundation in order to destroy it, the intolerant must no longer be tolerated lest the foundations be destroyed.

    Kant begins the first Critique by stating that all knowledge begins with experience (not “the senses”). In the next sentence, he challenges the reader to show where else the source of knowledge might be. The ball is in your court.

  137. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve Sailer published two inter-related articles:
    http://takimag.com/article/the_best_defense_is_a_good_offense_steve_sailer/print#axzz4jJ36j9OG
    It may be called “What if Charles Murray is wrong” From there:

    […] how Murray is right and the conventional wisdom is wrong on (at least) 80 percent of the scientific issues:
    (1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.
    (2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.
    (3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.
    (4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.
    *
    The three scientists admitted, in so many words, that they only disagreed with:
    5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.
    Sailer was not going to get into the arguments over (5) in his article.
    *
    Second article:
    http://takimag.com/article/what_if_charles_murray_is_right_steve_sailer/print#axzz4jJ36j9OG
    Is actually called
    “What if Charles Murray Is Right?”

  138. Is this guy even relevant to modern people?

    You guys have to be in your 80s. I’m old but even don’t know about this guy

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    What has age got to do with that? There's people who still read today books written* by an old blind Greek guy almost 3000 years ago, believe it or not! And the readers are not even 500 years old!

    *Well, maybe he didn't write them, but you get the point. Er, I think.
  139. Steve Sailer
    Nietzsche writes of slave morality. Rehabilitation is to make common people accept slave morality. They accept other harsh conditions with much debt, much persecution, much inequality, lies in government. Slave is the future for such accepters. Do not be a slave.

  140. res says:
    @ATX Hipster

    the military is selective
     
    lol

    the military is selective

    lol

    The Army has the lowest ASVAB/AFQT minimum score at 31
    https://asvabbootcamp.com/blog/asvab-scores-2017/

    Per this page that translates to an IQ of 94
    http://differing.blogspot.com/2007/05/military-and-iq-redux.html

    The average African American IQ is typically quoted as 85.

    Therefore the Army minimum threshold excludes blacks who are less than 0.6 SD above average in SD (and the other service thresholds are higher).

    Sounds selective to me for the purposes of this discussion.

    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    I was being facetious.

    Joking aside, the USA Today article is nonsense, and you're correct wrt to the disparity between ucmj punishments and FBI crime stats.

    The article says guilty convictions peaked in 2010, which was when those who enlisted during the surge, which really did see lowered standards, were hitting 3 years in.
  141. In recent decades, the reputation of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has been largely rehabilitated despite the unfortunate events of 1933-1945.

    Nietzsche had very little to do with such events. Marx would have been more guilty (as he unleashed the specter of Communism and its eventual counter-reaction)

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)

    I think very few people know or care about Galton. I don’t think the left worries about him too much. They won.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "I think very few people know or care about Galton"

    That's the plan.

    "They won."

    The game is ongoing. They're way ahead, but they like to run up the score.
    , @guest
    About no one knowing Galton, think about that for a second. Related to Darwin, famous in his own time. The guy who coined the term "eugenics" and the phrase "nature versus nurture." The guy who invented psychometrics. Very influential in statistics, especially regarding correlation and regression to the mean. Developed fingerprint analysis for forensic science. Developed meteorology and invented the weather map. I could go on.

    Now, I realize the general public can't be aware of everyone. Lots of guys don't get their due. But do you think it might be a coincidence we don't know this guy and he was a grade-A badthinker (according to the purposes of those currently in charge of the culture)?

    Some they hold up as examples, some they let us forget. Galton is a little bit of both.

  142. HA says:
    @Achilles

    Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values
     
    Nietzsche is rubbish. It's just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world ("you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil").

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply 'man up' and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren't very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, 'Science' is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It's been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with 'punctuated equilibrium' if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it's not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    “>Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.”

    Bingo. The left that loves Nietzsche regards him as a patron saint of existentialism, based on the two core axioms that both his philosophy and theirs share, which is: A) the universe is devoid of meaning and B) humans can nonetheless create meaning for themselves, somehow.

    Now, perhaps the humanity in question who are able to create all this meaning for themselves are the mundane “masses”, as the left would prefer, or else as Nietzsche would have it, just the Ubermensch echelon , but even the latter are presumably fairly numerous in a world of billions of people. That being the case, how meaningless is the universe, really, if it allows for all this meaning-creation? Contrarily, if it is indeed as fundamentally devoid of meaning as they claim, how is any effort to create meaning not itself doomed from the outset?

    Now, I completely understand why people hate Christianity and why so many a century or so ago believed that some new rough beast deserved a welcome. But in hindsight, what’s amazing is how much crazier all those new and improved out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire alternatives to Christianity turned out to be — be they from Rousseau, from Bismarck, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Hitler — or else that EleanorRoosevelt/JohnLennon/Obama/Merkel mush-blob of progressivist goodwill that seems to have taken the lead recently. Whatever credulity and wishful thinking is required to believe in virgin birth and resurrection pales in comparison to the wishful thinking and mental gymnastics that all the replacement Christianities regard as inviolable dogma.

  143. @Achilles

    Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values
     
    Nietzsche is rubbish. It's just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world ("you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil").

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply 'man up' and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren't very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, 'Science' is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It's been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with 'punctuated equilibrium' if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it's not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    Largely agree.

    “… and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.”

    Plain old pride, that pesky sin, from a stunted human being. And it is still selling like hot bread on a cold morning, as per Sailer dedicating 2 post to this ‘super smart’ ‘stylish’ ‘thinker’. (Who by the way writes nothing like Wolfe, if Back to Blood is anything to go by.)

    Or was it just smart and timely click-bait for the Unz commentariat?

  144. BBC lies, they just reported that Comey will testify that Trump told him to “lay off” of an investigation, all he said was “I hope you can let it go.”

  145. @res


    the military is selective
     
    lol
     
    The Army has the lowest ASVAB/AFQT minimum score at 31
    https://asvabbootcamp.com/blog/asvab-scores-2017/

    Per this page that translates to an IQ of 94
    http://differing.blogspot.com/2007/05/military-and-iq-redux.html

    The average African American IQ is typically quoted as 85.

    Therefore the Army minimum threshold excludes blacks who are less than 0.6 SD above average in SD (and the other service thresholds are higher).

    Sounds selective to me for the purposes of this discussion.

    I was being facetious.

    Joking aside, the USA Today article is nonsense, and you’re correct wrt to the disparity between ucmj punishments and FBI crime stats.

    The article says guilty convictions peaked in 2010, which was when those who enlisted during the surge, which really did see lowered standards, were hitting 3 years in.

  146. @James Richard
    Except that they didn't have enough reasons because they mis-read or more likely failed to read or just skipped over much of his writings that were antithetical to their ideology.

    My point was that they had enough reasons to use/borrow/shorthand his main themes to fit their own purposes, and for several decades it was assumed that Nietzsche sowed the seeds for Hitlerism. This was taught in high school in a lit. class on Nietzsche, which is where I first became acquainted with Zarathrustra.

    Hitler had the reason of wanting to ground his lust for power into a ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ base, he even tried to use historical determinism to make it appear that his views had long been the norm and the time had come to implement them. There was enough truthiness in Nietzsche’s ideas to make this seem reasonable. In his eyes, this was all the reason he needed. In Atlas Shrugged, the rugged Superman-esque leader was to make the world a better place thru the force of his will, eschewing the weak rabble classes, etc, etc. Rand’s Objectivist ideology was clearly based in part on Nietzsche’s writings (and she commented it was so over the years).

    While Nietzsche wasn’t anti-semitic per se (or rather wasn’t as anti-semitic compared to others of his time) he certainly wasn’t philo-semitic, and enough of his other ideas (Will to power’; the coming of a strong man leader ; ec.) contained enough seeds that allowed Hitler to make use of them.

    And the question remains: We don’t really know one way or the other how Nietzsche would’ve reacted with the Nazis using his ideas to justify their power. Perhaps he would’ve recoiled in horror, or maybe, just maybe, he would’ve initially thought it interesting that a major government was attempting to base its power on his writings and offered his services to the government. Remember, some of Nazism’s biggest supporters in Germany were in the Universities, professors who would certainly have been well familiar with Nietzsche’s writings.

  147. HA says:
    @Samuel Skinner

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.
     
    Not entirely
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/05/jews-are-not-nihilists.html

    Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God's existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done.

    The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it.
     
    Natural and sexual selection.

    There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.
     
    That is testable. We can look at the differences in genetic code between related organisms. Bacteria are the easiest to test- what is the rate of change you expect versus the current theory?

    “Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God’s existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done.”

    The fact that something is ludicrous is no guarantee that some tribe or another won’t regard it as sacred dogma — especially if the tribe has intellectuals among its ranks.

    To be fair, intelligence and the notion of fake-it-till-you-make-it seem to go together, not just for Jews. iSteve readers are familiar with the quixotic attempt to remedy poverty by getting poor mothers to be as verbal to their children as educated mothers. Whatever probability of success one assigns to that effort, the studies on which they are based are fairly striking: intelligent mothers, far more so than poor/uneducated ones, have no problem having long baby-talk “discussions” with children who can barely understand a word or more. Likewise, talking to animals and to yourself is a marker of intelligence.

    Dumb people have less use for such patent stupidity than do intellectuals. Anyway, with respect to the earlier point, no one said the world has to make sense.

  148. HA says:
    @Achilles

    Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values
     
    Nietzsche is rubbish. It's just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world ("you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil").

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply 'man up' and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren't very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, 'Science' is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It's been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with 'punctuated equilibrium' if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it's not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    “Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it.”

    No, it’s not a scientific failure — it’s an aesthetic one. If there are indeed countless many Everett universes, (filtered by some anthropic principle), then one can scientifically explain most anything around us, and perfectly validly.

    Admittedly, this is just an advanced version of putting an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters together so as to eventually recreate the works of Shakespeare, and some might therefore regard it as an unsatisfying cheat, but so be it. After all, if the initial goal is to reduce the universe to its most simplistic constituents, why let a little thing like banality stand in the way? It certainly shouldn’t surprise anyone.

  149. @Samuel Skinner

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.
     
    Not entirely
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/05/jews-are-not-nihilists.html

    Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God's existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done.

    The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it.
     
    Natural and sexual selection.

    There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.
     
    That is testable. We can look at the differences in genetic code between related organisms. Bacteria are the easiest to test- what is the rate of change you expect versus the current theory?

    “Jews manage to have low levels of belief in God’s existence and high levels of believing there is a higher purpose in life. I have no idea how that is done.”

    Its fairly easy to understand. Their purpose is wrapped up in their identity, who they are as members of an ethnic tribe.

    They are part of a particular definable tribe that extends back into history. At some basic level, their identity is based on where they came from, and in this case, they believe that world history borrows heavily from the teachings contained in their Holy Book, and that the world is indebted to them for all the contributions that they have made to the world over the millennia. And all the history books pretty much bear this out and teach it (at least implicitly). Who wouldn’t tend to feel that life has meaning and a higher purpose, when throughout the ages, one’s tribe members often took the leading role in helping to make the world a better place? For an intellectual, that’s a pretty good feeling to have growing up. ‘Gosh, my ancestors invented/created this and that, I’m in that mold, have something to look forward to, and I can help make the world a better place too.’

    The difference between blacks and Jews, is that Jews’s natural self-esteem is based in historical reality: Many of their ancestors were at the forefront of idealogical movements; at the forefront of various human centered disciples–math; science; medicine; law; etc. And also, their tribe members tend to out earn others in per capita income no matter the nation they live.

    What other group can say that their tribe’s contributions have benefitted not only themselves individually/for the tribe, but also humanity at large, and for over so long an historical stretch of time?

    Answer: None.

  150. @Dr. X
    One of the most fascinating aspects of Nietzsche's "rehabilitation" on the Left is that Betty Friedan, the Jewish feminist, approvingly cited Nietzsche's doctrine of the "will to power" in The Feminine Mystique.

    Anyone who has read Nietzsche thoroughly, and is familiar with his aphorisms on both Jews and women will find Friedan's citation of him quite astonishing.

    “If you’re going with a woman, don’t forget to bring a whip.” Or something like that. It’s the line I remember best from Zarathustra.

  151. What would Lewis Carroll think of the current situation?

    https://gab.ai/Crew/posts/8609110

  152. @syonredux

    Lovecraft has gotten a lot of attention lately, but they can’t tear him down for obvious reasons.
     
    They're certainly trying to, though. Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award. Then there's the recent spate of fiction meant to "correct" HPL's un-PC attitudes : Lovecraft Country, The Ballad of Black Tom, etc Jordan Peele's even going to turn Lovecraft Country into a TV series....

    “Note the successful campaign against using his image for the World Fantasy Award.”

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/09/reflections-on-the-h-p-lovecraft-award/

  153. Nietzsche was in many ways a Walter Mitty character: a nerd dreaming of being a superhero. His contempt of the common herd and glorification of cruelty was, if not sociopathic, that of a military nobility, hence aristocratic in the original barbarous form of that institution.

  154. BBC lies again, they report that Comey said Trump “demanded” loyalty, Trump said he “expected” loyalty. Reporting reality is just too boring for BBC, I guess. Since they’re on the gov’t tit, they can’t just follow their hearts and start making fantasy films for Hollywood.

    • Replies: @guest
    Who cares if Trump demanded loyalty, anyway? A president can't have people loyal to him running his own branch's departments? I find myself confronted daily by people aghast at perfectly normal things. (Not that normality is great altogether, but in this case...)

    Wait, I forgot Trump's not really president. Because Russia/electoral college. Nevermind.
  155. Could any UK reader please give us an update on the election? Have the tories collapsed in 2 months? Is Brexit in jeopardy now? Is the muslim party in contention despite 3 terror attacks?

  156. Have always been drawn to Nietzsche. In fact, his words are the best when expressing condolences after tremendous loss: “invisible strings are the strongest ties.”

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    invisible strings.....should have been: Invisible threads.
  157. Forget all my BS here is my answer to Freddy :

    You know the donut doesn’t know much but the donut knows music .

    • Replies: @donut
    oh Gott im himmel she didn't , did she ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSg75EgnRvw
  158. @donut
    Forget all my BS here is my answer to Freddy :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcrMfVbemY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lVzavsXRd4

    You know the donut doesn't know much but the donut knows music .

    oh Gott im himmel she didn’t , did she ?

    • Replies: @donut
    He is long gone and his art was ephemeral unlike the masters . There will come a time when casually some acquaintance , friend or foe will remember us or say our name for the last time and then we will be lost and forgotten for all of eternity . Just a random thought .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj7Bmbr3UF0
  159. @German_reader
    The only people I've ever read who make a big deal of Nietzsche are Christians who go on about how finally there's an anti-Christian thinker who knows what the endpoint of a rejection of Christianity is (nihilism, Nazism, cult of power, despair...in any case something really bad!).
    Or maybe alt-right weirdoes are also into him (some of them even pretend to read Heidegger after all).

    in any case something really bad!

    Because Germans never get to “something really bad!” do they?

  160. @oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    Nietzsche has been able to transcend boundaries. Not only the German/English but the Christian/Non Christian.
    Non Christian in the context of Nietzsche historically meant "Western European Atheists/Empiricist Skeptics" but in the Open Borders/Free Internet modernity we live in the definition has become very (rightfully?) expansive.
    As an example
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eSzCo9AMWk

    Salafist French Rap's #1 Hit Jam is a Islamist discussion and rejection of Nietzsche. I'm a mortal enemy of salfism and not too much bigger a fan of rap, but it's worth pointing out that Nietzsche still has a "street" presence. Discussion/refutation of his tenants from an Abrahamic world view is still so au courrant that Parisian hipsters bang they hedz to it. This song comes from an album which got the #9 spot in France

    Nietzsche has been able to transcend boundaries. Not only the German/English but the Christian/Non Christian.

    You forgot the parasite/host, victim/perpetrator, cis/trans gender, straight/bended/contorted/distorted, mustached/clean-shaven, mouse/cat/dog/dogeater/eater-of-dog-eater, animal/vegetable/stone, stoned/bemoaned, etc. Because Nietschze was dah man, no?

    Street cred? Now that is the basis for improving the lot of humanity!

  161. @oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    Nietzsche has been able to transcend boundaries. Not only the German/English but the Christian/Non Christian.
    Non Christian in the context of Nietzsche historically meant "Western European Atheists/Empiricist Skeptics" but in the Open Borders/Free Internet modernity we live in the definition has become very (rightfully?) expansive.
    As an example
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eSzCo9AMWk

    Salafist French Rap's #1 Hit Jam is a Islamist discussion and rejection of Nietzsche. I'm a mortal enemy of salfism and not too much bigger a fan of rap, but it's worth pointing out that Nietzsche still has a "street" presence. Discussion/refutation of his tenants from an Abrahamic world view is still so au courrant that Parisian hipsters bang they hedz to it. This song comes from an album which got the #9 spot in France

    Some of the lyrics:
    – ” ‘God is dead’, says Nietzsche. ‘Nietzsche is dead’ signed God”
    – “You know the law, we know the Judge”
    – ” ‘No gods or masters’ except Master Kanter” [Maître Kanter is a chain of tavern restaurants]

    The chorus is “we will all go to Paradise, all to Paradise, In šāʾ ʾAllāh“.

    That rap video is both clever and very sinister. It’s like IRA songs in that way. “The SAM Song” springs to mind.

    Nietzsche gets another francosexual rap shout out in this newer video:

    http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/le-rap-de-deux-youtubeurs-pour-reviser-la-philo_4155d7fc-4b7e-11e7-9fe8-035f9d604401/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=social_lefigaro&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1496854780

    I notice they mention a quote of Nietzsche’s: “become who you are”, which is a motto Richard Spencer has taken up. I like it myself.

    Julien Rochedy points out that the rap gets Nietzsche wrong on nihilism. Rochedy says they call Nietzsche a nihilist when he actually wrote against it:

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I just had a second look at a YouTube video of the pro-IRA "SAM Song", posted by someone named "musissima". I wish our super smart, technocratic global elite would have a look a things like that. It would help them remember Europeans are capable of a bit more than mean tweets, giving people dirty looks on the train and sharing spicey memes online.

    If the hive mind of our governing class had a memory longer than that of a goldfish and a thought process more focused than a hummingbird's, they might think about the history of places like Northern Ireland and then worry about what happens when you get the White kids angry.

    , @daniel le mouche
    The IRA song you suggest I enjoyed, unlike the French language Islamic shite. They may leave France, as the English may leave Ireland.
  162. @Anonymous
    Nietzsche was aware of socialists and democrats in his day who purported to subscribe to his doctrines, and calling them “tarantulas,” told them to get lost in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

    'Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble!

    There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge.

    Thus I speak to you in a parable --- you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of the your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

    The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge" --- thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not" --- thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!"

    You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy --- perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers --- erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

    What was silent in the father speaks in the son; and often I found the son the unveiled secret of the father.

    They are like enthusiasts, yet it is not the heart that fires them --- but revenge. And when they become elegant and cold, it is not the spirit but envy that makes them elegant and cold. Their jealousy leads them even on the paths of thinkers; and this is the sign of their jealousy: they always go too far, till their weariness must in the end lie down to sleep in the snow. Out of every one of their complaints sounds revenge; in their praise there is always a sting, and to be a judge seems bliss to them.

    But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had --- power.

    My friends, I do not want to be mixed up and confused with others. Some preach my doctrine of life and are at the same time preachers of equality and tarantulas. Although they are sitting in their holes, these poisonous spiders, with their backs turned on life, they speak in favor of life, but only because they wish to hurt. They wish to hurt those who now have power, for among these the preaching of death is still most at home. If it were otherwise, the tarantulas would teach otherwise; they themselves were once the foremost slanderers of the world and burners of heretics.

    I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality. For, to me justice speaks thus: "Men are not equal." Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the overman be if I spoke otherwise?' Translated Walter Kaufmann, 1883/1954

    These words should strike a chord with any longtime iSteve-Reading Racist. Of course, today the tarantulas do have power, and their thirst for revenge and burning heretics is limited only by an increasingly obsolete body of constitutional/legal strictures that our tarantrulers are quickly working to dismantle. Decayed Nietzscheanism, one of the intellectual arms of the tarantulas, is a principal characteristic of the modern university, with leftists totally unmoved by Nietzsche's critique of Christianity/liberalism and its slave values. Nietzsche ran a tremendous risk in proclaiming the arrival of the overman, a risk whose proximate outcome was Nazism, and whose more distant consequence, in the wake and because of Nazism's defeat, was the hastening of precisely the outcome the doctrine was intended to forestall: the last man, who lives longest.

    These words should strike a chord with any longtime iSteve-Reading Racist

    That’s great! Now all three of you can rejoice! What? Oh, my mistake, both of you can rejoice!

  163. The main reason Nietzsche appeals to the left is that his philosophy is basically juvenile. “Question authority!” It’s not introspective. It’s just adolescent rebellion.

  164. @Cagey Beast
    Some of the lyrics:
    - " 'God is dead', says Nietzsche. 'Nietzsche is dead' signed God"
    - "You know the law, we know the Judge"
    - " 'No gods or masters' except Master Kanter" [Maître Kanter is a chain of tavern restaurants]

    The chorus is "we will all go to Paradise, all to Paradise, In šāʾ ʾAllāh".

    That rap video is both clever and very sinister. It's like IRA songs in that way. "The SAM Song" springs to mind.

    Nietzsche gets another francosexual rap shout out in this newer video:

    http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/le-rap-de-deux-youtubeurs-pour-reviser-la-philo_4155d7fc-4b7e-11e7-9fe8-035f9d604401/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=social_lefigaro&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1496854780

    I notice they mention a quote of Nietzsche's: "become who you are", which is a motto Richard Spencer has taken up. I like it myself.

    Julien Rochedy points out that the rap gets Nietzsche wrong on nihilism. Rochedy says they call Nietzsche a nihilist when he actually wrote against it:
    https://twitter.com/JRochedy/status/872521593045569536

    I just had a second look at a YouTube video of the pro-IRA “SAM Song”, posted by someone named “musissima”. I wish our super smart, technocratic global elite would have a look a things like that. It would help them remember Europeans are capable of a bit more than mean tweets, giving people dirty looks on the train and sharing spicey memes online.

    If the hive mind of our governing class had a memory longer than that of a goldfish and a thought process more focused than a hummingbird’s, they might think about the history of places like Northern Ireland and then worry about what happens when you get the White kids angry.

  165. @donut
    oh Gott im himmel she didn't , did she ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSg75EgnRvw

    He is long gone and his art was ephemeral unlike the masters . There will come a time when casually some acquaintance , friend or foe will remember us or say our name for the last time and then we will be lost and forgotten for all of eternity . Just a random thought .

  166. @Lot

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).
     
    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read. Das Kapital is in the same awful style. But Marx's letters are witty and enjoyable, and The Communist Manifesto I think ranks at up near the top right below Common Sense for propaganda prose quality. Both the first and last paragraphs have become cliches.


    A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.



    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!
     
    This is good too:

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

    Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    ...

    The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
     

    I always suspected Engles penned the Communist Manifesto, using Marx’s ideas. He was the real writer.

  167. In case you weren’t sure:

  168. @Anon
    Is this guy even relevant to modern people?

    You guys have to be in your 80s. I'm old but even don't know about this guy

    What has age got to do with that? There’s people who still read today books written* by an old blind Greek guy almost 3000 years ago, believe it or not! And the readers are not even 500 years old!

    *Well, maybe he didn’t write them, but you get the point. Er, I think.

  169. A warning to all parents out there. If your son wants a complete collection of Nietzsche for a graduation present, don’t give it to him! Admiral Morrison did this and in a few years his son called himself the Lizard King and sang a song about killing his father.

    • Replies: @guest
    That's what the CIA wants you to think./s
    , @BB753
    Though you're surely half-joking you're absolutely right. Nietzsche should be read only by mature readers. I don't endorse censure but some books and even films should be kept away from impressionable young minds, say under thirty or forty.
    And absolutely no one should be forced to read Nietzsche 's Thus Spake Zarathustra, his most boring and unreadable book, not even war prisoners under duress, lol! (see my first post on this thread).
  170. @Anon
    There is a Midsomer Murders episode that is very down on Galton. One suspect mentions he is a Galton fan, and at first the detective is all "Galton! Discoverer of fingerprints! Great guy!" But then he starts reading up on Galton and finds out about the eugenics stuff, and by the end he's theatrically throwing his Galton book in the trash. And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.

    And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.

    Gah, too late with the spoiler alert! We Calvinists have just embarked on watching the vast Midsomer Murders oeuvre; we’ve knocked off the first three episodes, and have found it good fun.

    There’s no way I’ll unremember this one.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Sorry! In my defense it was one of the less enjoyable episodes, creepy and far fetched.
  171. @Absent Professor
    Nietzsche's rehabilitation by the Left was already an accomplished fact 30 years ago when Allan Bloom discussed the phenomenon in "The Closing of the American Mind." Although Bloom's discussion of the fate of the academy is largely remembered today for its fogeyish critique of Rock and Roll, his analysis of academic intellectual trends is largely accurate and his predictions are often spot on.

    As Bloom points out, the academic Left largely abandoned Marxian economic analysis in the 1960s in favor of trekking along roads laid down by Nietzsche. They've been going full bore ever since. This is part of the reason why the collapse of the Soviet Union meant exactly nothing to academics - none of them are doctrinaire Marxists anymore, and the ones who bother "identifying" as such do so for shock value (or out of pure ignorance, which is not in short supply in the academy these days).

    There are many reasons for this and they're complex and interesting to investigate for those so inclined. Since iSteve readers trend toward numbers guys and hopeless autistics I imagine few are going to be inclined this way. For the sake of demonstration, I will point out a singularly unhelpful approach taken by Mr. Achilles above. He writes the following:

    "Nietzsche is rubbish. It’s just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world (“you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil”).

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah."

    Of course, Nietzsche himself would agree completely about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. He himself argues that men who grow up in a world informed by science are incapable by and large of believing in revelations from God. We are too aware of the history of texts and textual transmission, the facts of human love for power, the realities of manipulation, and the all-too-human qualities which anyone can see in purportedly divine texts to believe in divine revelation with the simplicity of a first century Christian. The problem, which Nietzsche was the first to name and confront as such, is what does our society do when it cannot rely on the power and coherence of the Christian religion anymore? Our society relies on revelation at multiple levels and in ways we are just beginning to understand. To remove that underpinning is to expose the whole edifice to problems and contradictions it may be unable to survive. On some level, as Nietzsche says, we must make up some new gods to support the structure - but men do not bow down to purely human idols. Moses had to pretend he had a revelation from God because no one would obey him otherwise. So, how do we create something that has the power of a deity to command respect and obedience and belief? This is the problem, and simply to dismiss it as "rubbish" seems unworthy of serious men.

    To return to the Left and Nietzsche: much of the utopian nonsense of modern Leftism derives from a Nietzsche-inspired vision of a socially constructed future utopia (rather than a Marxist vision of a classless society). The more you explore leftist thought the more Nietzschean elements you find in it. Unfortunately, intellectual influences aren't like chemistry, where elements can be distinguished within a compound; it works more like a stew, where you can identify certain flavors but can't isolate them from the mix anymore.

    As for Bloom's early observation on this phenomenon, the mind which was closing in 1987 is in 2017 completely shut: campus protests of the last two years demonstrate this to perfection. At least the kids' minds will be full of safe spaces!

    I agree with the analysis of Nietzsche; not with the assumption Moses was lying!

    You’re right that revelation is the foundation of any worldview. All people live by a vision of one sort or another.

  172. @Dumbo

    In recent decades, the reputation of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has been largely rehabilitated despite the unfortunate events of 1933-1945.
     
    Nietzsche had very little to do with such events. Marx would have been more guilty (as he unleashed the specter of Communism and its eventual counter-reaction)

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)
     
    I think very few people know or care about Galton. I don't think the left worries about him too much. They won.

    “I think very few people know or care about Galton”

    That’s the plan.

    “They won.”

    The game is ongoing. They’re way ahead, but they like to run up the score.

  173. @AM
    "3.a. Above all Nietzsche is a prophet. His criticisms of Christianity aren’t really theological or metaphysical in nature. He foretold the descent of Christianity into “Churchianty”, which enshrines radical egalitarianism above the Word of God. I don’t have my Kindle on me to quote the highlighted passages, but in “Beyond Good & Evil” he blasts asceticism, noting that religious ascetics eventually even deny themselves God. What is liberal/progressive SJW-ism if not godless Puritanism?"

    I'm putting this up as repeat. The whole comment is right on the money. :)

    This is Nietzche's value, right here, as prophet. Even the Catholics, as a mass, have become godless Puritians to an extent. Churchians are everywhere in Christianity right now, to the point that the difference between a liberal Catholic and an SJW is disagreement over 1 issue and how they spend Sunday morning.

    So many people in the alt-right intellectually understand the critical role of Christianity in Western Civilization - and between the misinformation and the uncompelling (or repelling) nature of churchian culture they can't bring themselves to the church door. (And I'll add personal laziness, here, too.)

    We need to overcome the barrier and get *everyone* interested in saving the West to somehow get themselves to open that church door in an honest way. Nietzche is going to get us where he got himself, a comfy last few years of life before an early death. In many ways, his life is the recent history of the West in miniature.

    Because what the Neitzche failed to notice about Christianity was that slaves eventually found the courage to be marytrs, saints, and build cathedrals,and find out more about the world around them then anyone dared to dream was possible.

    We need to overcome the barrier and get *everyone* interested in saving the West to somehow get themselves to open that church door in an honest way. Nietzche is going to get us where he got himself, a comfy last few years of life before an early death. In many ways, his life is the recent history of the West in miniature.

    Excellent, as is the original comment from Gunnar v C.

  174. @syonredux

    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read.
     
    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.Kant's not exactly fun, but he's at least trying to be clear.

    Not counting fascists, there’s not a great amount of rightist (or alleged rightist) Nietzschean interest. Except among right-libertarians like Mencken. There’s a great unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in the mind of Ayn Rand. Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    Mencken a Lib Lib Libertarian? Only in some Herrenmoral versus Sklavenmoral sense, not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse.

    Paul Gottfried, the same Paul Gottfried who publishes here in Unz, has criticized ole Henry M.’s inaccurate English language translations of N.

    //////////////////////////////////////

    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.

    Our own Intelligent Dasein comprehends Heidegger entirely and perfectly. I am waiting for Mr. Dasein to explain Heidegger to the rest of us.

    • Replies: @guest
    "not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse"

    "Individualist" is probably a more accurate term. I paint with a broad brush when I reference libertarianism. But Mencken has a lot of the earmarks, especially in his anti-New Deal phase. Read Men Versus the Man, for instance.

    As for his book on Nietzsche, I think it's a hoot. Yeah, Mencken distorts him beyond recognition. But it's a treat to read a great mind obsessed with another great mind, even if you can't trust the former.

    Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it's interesting to read him on the topic, as there are many "palpable hits."
  175. @Svigor
    BBC lies again, they report that Comey said Trump "demanded" loyalty, Trump said he "expected" loyalty. Reporting reality is just too boring for BBC, I guess. Since they're on the gov't tit, they can't just follow their hearts and start making fantasy films for Hollywood.

    Who cares if Trump demanded loyalty, anyway? A president can’t have people loyal to him running his own branch’s departments? I find myself confronted daily by people aghast at perfectly normal things. (Not that normality is great altogether, but in this case…)

    Wait, I forgot Trump’s not really president. Because Russia/electoral college. Nevermind.

  176. @Svigor

    One way to think about the onslaught of failing accusations against Trump is that it will put him and his people on guard to avoid anything that in any way smells of the illegal henceforth. The point being, these attacks are actually serving as a good vaccination against scandal and, at the greatest extreme, impeachment.

    And I suspect that the opposite was true of the Obama WH. For example, the scandals, yet to be fully exposed, of the likes of Susan Rice and Samantha Power “unmasking” political opponents owe their existence to the utterly uncritical backing the Obama WH received from our shameless press. Why avoid doing such things when one knows the press will never investigate them?

    When the details of these Obama WH perfidies come out, we may very well see a frog march or two.

    A lot of unintended consequences here.

  177. @flyingtiger
    A warning to all parents out there. If your son wants a complete collection of Nietzsche for a graduation present, don't give it to him! Admiral Morrison did this and in a few years his son called himself the Lizard King and sang a song about killing his father.

    That’s what the CIA wants you to think./s

    • Replies: @flyingtiger
    You have been listening to David McGowan too much.
  178. @BB753
    I agree. Nietzsche was such a reactionary that his thinking provides a cure against all kinds of progressivism, including modern Christianity. For Nietzsche, Cesare Borgia constituted the high-point of Catholicism. "Alexander the Great on Saint Peter's throne!" as he put it.
    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor's son.
    To understand the man, picture Nietzche basically as a classical nerd who hated almost anything that happened after Democritus. And he was blind as a bat, sickly all his life, bullied as a child and women didn't give him the time of day, even though he became an academic wunderkid, and died an involuntary celibate. Actually, he died from syphilis he contracted from a prostitute, the one and only time he got laid. Mad as a hatter. Too intelligent and talented for his own good. To the end he despised pity and being pitied. A great man, all in all. To be read with caution.

    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor’s son.

    Might that be better phrased ‘Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation because he was a Lutheran pastor’s son?’

    We rebel most zealously against that which we know best.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Correlation does not equal causation but you might be on to something.
    When Nietzsche suffered bullying in school the kids called him "the little pastor".
    , @Anon
    The only one who could ever reach me, was the son of a preacher man.
  179. @David Davenport
    Not counting fascists, there’s not a great amount of rightist (or alleged rightist) Nietzschean interest. Except among right-libertarians like Mencken. There’s a great unacknowledged debt to Nietzsche in the mind of Ayn Rand. Rightist individualist anarchists are heavily into Nietzsche, as well.

    Mencken a Lib Lib Libertarian? Only in some Herrenmoral versus Sklavenmoral sense, not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse.

    Paul Gottfried, the same Paul Gottfried who publishes here in Unz, has criticized ole Henry M.'s inaccurate English language translations of N.

    //////////////////////////////////////


    Of the three, Heidegger is by far the worst.

    Our own Intelligent Dasein comprehends Heidegger entirely and perfectly. I am waiting for Mr. Dasein to explain Heidegger to the rest of us.

    “not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse”

    “Individualist” is probably a more accurate term. I paint with a broad brush when I reference libertarianism. But Mencken has a lot of the earmarks, especially in his anti-New Deal phase. Read Men Versus the Man, for instance.

    As for his book on Nietzsche, I think it’s a hoot. Yeah, Mencken distorts him beyond recognition. But it’s a treat to read a great mind obsessed with another great mind, even if you can’t trust the former.

    Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it’s interesting to read him on the topic, as there are many “palpable hits.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Scopes Monkey Trial was more about Nietzsche than Darwin. Mencken, of course, was a huge Nietzsche fan, and Clarence Darrow had just saved Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty for murdering that poor kid to prove they were beyond good and evil or ubermensches or whatever their Nietzsche-inspired reason was. William Jennings Bryan was a pacifist (he'd honorably resigned as secretary of state in 1915 to protest Wilson's drift toward war) and he was concerned about how German militarists during the war had cited Nietzsche.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Nietzsche was the Robert E. Howard of German philosophy.
    , @vinteuil
    "Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it’s interesting to read him on the topic..." Well, yes indeed. And he was the first to say so. *Nietzsche contra Wagner* is probably the closest N. ever came to a finished, polished piece of work. And it is so, so brilliant. About a hundred times more insightful than anything Kant or (God forbid) Hegel ever wrote about the arts.
  180. @Dumbo

    In recent decades, the reputation of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) has been largely rehabilitated despite the unfortunate events of 1933-1945.
     
    Nietzsche had very little to do with such events. Marx would have been more guilty (as he unleashed the specter of Communism and its eventual counter-reaction)

    (In contrast, Francis Galton is today widely considered to be a progenitor of the Holocaust.)
     
    I think very few people know or care about Galton. I don't think the left worries about him too much. They won.

    About no one knowing Galton, think about that for a second. Related to Darwin, famous in his own time. The guy who coined the term “eugenics” and the phrase “nature versus nurture.” The guy who invented psychometrics. Very influential in statistics, especially regarding correlation and regression to the mean. Developed fingerprint analysis for forensic science. Developed meteorology and invented the weather map. I could go on.

    Now, I realize the general public can’t be aware of everyone. Lots of guys don’t get their due. But do you think it might be a coincidence we don’t know this guy and he was a grade-A badthinker (according to the purposes of those currently in charge of the culture)?

    Some they hold up as examples, some they let us forget. Galton is a little bit of both.

  181. @guest
    "not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse"

    "Individualist" is probably a more accurate term. I paint with a broad brush when I reference libertarianism. But Mencken has a lot of the earmarks, especially in his anti-New Deal phase. Read Men Versus the Man, for instance.

    As for his book on Nietzsche, I think it's a hoot. Yeah, Mencken distorts him beyond recognition. But it's a treat to read a great mind obsessed with another great mind, even if you can't trust the former.

    Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it's interesting to read him on the topic, as there are many "palpable hits."

    The Scopes Monkey Trial was more about Nietzsche than Darwin. Mencken, of course, was a huge Nietzsche fan, and Clarence Darrow had just saved Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty for murdering that poor kid to prove they were beyond good and evil or ubermensches or whatever their Nietzsche-inspired reason was. William Jennings Bryan was a pacifist (he’d honorably resigned as secretary of state in 1915 to protest Wilson’s drift toward war) and he was concerned about how German militarists during the war had cited Nietzsche.

    • Replies: @guest
    Mencken had improperly Darwinized Nietzsche. First, by conflating the Schopenhauerian will to life with Nietzsche's will to power. Then by thinking of the Overman as naturally superior in a Social Darwinian sense. As in, there's a struggle in life and the biological aristocrats prove out. The slave morality of Christian altruism is diseugenic, because it doesn't allow the fittest to prosper as individuals, or whatever. Basically, he equates Nietzsche with Herbert Spencer.

    Which would have driven Nietzsche mad, if he hadn't been mad already. Because Darwin, as another poster pointed out, represented to Nietzsche petty, smallminded materialism. A very Anglo way to view the world, which Mencken, purported champion of German over Anglo culture, should've seen right through. The Overman and will to power concepts are about transcending gross matter. They aren't about having a better biological inheritance.

    By the way, Mencken was against WWI, as well, though not for the same reason as Bryan. Henry would've preferred we jump in on the German side. Not because he was a Prussian militarist, but because he thought Anglo culture inferior and American interests to be on the other side.

    Bryan, for his part, was not entirely wrong about the baleful influence of these demonic philosophies. Darwinism and Nietzscheanism especially get inside people's minds and inflame certain preexisting conditions. But Bryan wasn't in any position to be giving Biblical exegesis on the stand. Someone who knew their stuff could've been sent in to run rings around Darrow.

    , @Demontage2000
    I would argue that Nietzsche is important for being the first notable thinker to deduce the implications of Darwin, not only for Christianity, but for the whole western tradition of philosophy since Plato, especially philosophical morality. The 21st-century flourishing of serious research in evolutionary psychology (Tooby, Cosmides, Buss, Haidt, etc.) is arriving at conclusions foreseen by Nietzsche. Perhaps the most striking is the parallel of Nietzsche's concept of master/slave moralities to the theory of r/K-selected life/mating/reproductive strategies (e.g., rabbits/wolves) and the group behaviors each would predict.
  182. @guest
    "not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse"

    "Individualist" is probably a more accurate term. I paint with a broad brush when I reference libertarianism. But Mencken has a lot of the earmarks, especially in his anti-New Deal phase. Read Men Versus the Man, for instance.

    As for his book on Nietzsche, I think it's a hoot. Yeah, Mencken distorts him beyond recognition. But it's a treat to read a great mind obsessed with another great mind, even if you can't trust the former.

    Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it's interesting to read him on the topic, as there are many "palpable hits."

    Nietzsche was the Robert E. Howard of German philosophy.

  183. @Joe Stalin
    I was watching an episode of "DC Legends of Tomorrow" and one of the characters says: "I've become the Wernher von Braun of robots!" Another character then goes on to explain how he invented the V-2 rocket and used slave labor. Our heroes of yesterday are just being trashed by the communist youth that have taken over the entire industrial-cultural complex.

    Another character then goes on to explain how he invented the V-2 rocket and used slave labor.

    What would Nietzsche say about that? Slave morality.

    Thank you slaves

  184. @Lot
    The Foutainhead is closer, but Rand was negative about Nietzsche.

    Rand was kind of like Larry Auster. The closer she came to agreeing with somebody, the more furiously she denounced his deviations from her orthodoxy.

    *The Fountainhead* is so Nietzschean that it could hardly be more Nietzschean.

  185. Jack London was an ardent socialist. Why do liberals think he was a Nazi? Probably because he was a hetero White male.

    Soon liberals will proclaim that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Eugene Debs, Willian Jennings Bryan, Earl Browder and other liberal heroes were Nazis because they were hetero White men

    • Replies: @guest
    "Jack London was an ardent socialist. Why do liberals think he was a Nazi?"

    Because Nazis were socialists? (National Socialists.)

    But seriously, it's because he's a known racist. All the other names you mention were probably badthinkers too, but London has the reputation. Or the stigmata, if you will.

    Also, he wrote a book called the Iron Heel, which is a bit too close to the "jackbooted thug" stereotype.

  186. @Anonymous
    Off Topic: A video of what real drowning looks like: link to a finnish newspaper: http://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/artikkeli/video-viisivuotias-kamppaili-hengestaan-helsinkilaisessa-uimahallissa-kukaan-ei-huomannut-hukkuvaa-lasta/6461070

    a five year old boy is drowning in a swimming pool next to numerous people and nobody notices while literally touching him. Fortunately the boy who was lifeless at the end was saved. Very disturbing to watch, but also important to see what it really looks like. Not sure if still worth it . It's the most horrifying thing I've ever seen.

    My mind immediately went to Stevie Smith’s:

    I was much too far out all my life
    and not waving, but drowning

  187. @guest
    "not in any way the Cato Institute or Sen. Rand Paul would endorse"

    "Individualist" is probably a more accurate term. I paint with a broad brush when I reference libertarianism. But Mencken has a lot of the earmarks, especially in his anti-New Deal phase. Read Men Versus the Man, for instance.

    As for his book on Nietzsche, I think it's a hoot. Yeah, Mencken distorts him beyond recognition. But it's a treat to read a great mind obsessed with another great mind, even if you can't trust the former.

    Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it's interesting to read him on the topic, as there are many "palpable hits."

    “Nietzsche, for his part, got his former idol Wagner wrong. Still, it’s interesting to read him on the topic…” Well, yes indeed. And he was the first to say so. *Nietzsche contra Wagner* is probably the closest N. ever came to a finished, polished piece of work. And it is so, so brilliant. About a hundred times more insightful than anything Kant or (God forbid) Hegel ever wrote about the arts.

  188. @MBlanc46
    He's a lot esaier to read than Kant or Hegel because he had a lot less to say.

    There’s a certain sort of German who can never quite believe that anything he can understand can possibly be profound. Such Germans actually admire the scribblings of Hegel – and even non-entities like Habermas! – precisely because they can’t understand a word of it.

  189. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor’s son.

     

    Might that be better phrased 'Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation because he was a Lutheran pastor's son?'

    We rebel most zealously against that which we know best.

    Correlation does not equal causation but you might be on to something.
    When Nietzsche suffered bullying in school the kids called him “the little pastor”.

  190. The “slave morality” Nietzsche attributed to Christianity is answered by the late anthropologist and philosopher, Rene Girard. Girard holds that Nietzsche’s error was one not of getting his facts wrong, but his interpretation wrong. Nietzsche failed to see that what The Passion represented was a heroic resistance to violent contagion, namely, mimetic rivalry.
    See Girard’s book, “I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning” for details. See Culture Wars Magazine, May 2017 for a good book review of same.

  191. @flyingtiger
    A warning to all parents out there. If your son wants a complete collection of Nietzsche for a graduation present, don't give it to him! Admiral Morrison did this and in a few years his son called himself the Lizard King and sang a song about killing his father.

    Though you’re surely half-joking you’re absolutely right. Nietzsche should be read only by mature readers. I don’t endorse censure but some books and even films should be kept away from impressionable young minds, say under thirty or forty.
    And absolutely no one should be forced to read Nietzsche ‘s Thus Spake Zarathustra, his most boring and unreadable book, not even war prisoners under duress, lol! (see my first post on this thread).

  192. @The Last Real Calvinist

    And (spoiler alert) the Galton fan turns out to be the murderer, for creepy Galton inspired reasons, no less.

     

    Gah, too late with the spoiler alert! We Calvinists have just embarked on watching the vast Midsomer Murders oeuvre; we've knocked off the first three episodes, and have found it good fun.

    There's no way I'll unremember this one.

    Sorry! In my defense it was one of the less enjoyable episodes, creepy and far fetched.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    Eh, no worries. As is the case with many television adaptations of murder mysteries, it's MM's setting and characters that delight; the plots are hit-or-miss anyway.
  193. @guest
    That's what the CIA wants you to think./s

    You have been listening to David McGowan too much.

  194. @Cagey Beast
    Some of the lyrics:
    - " 'God is dead', says Nietzsche. 'Nietzsche is dead' signed God"
    - "You know the law, we know the Judge"
    - " 'No gods or masters' except Master Kanter" [Maître Kanter is a chain of tavern restaurants]

    The chorus is "we will all go to Paradise, all to Paradise, In šāʾ ʾAllāh".

    That rap video is both clever and very sinister. It's like IRA songs in that way. "The SAM Song" springs to mind.

    Nietzsche gets another francosexual rap shout out in this newer video:

    http://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/le-rap-de-deux-youtubeurs-pour-reviser-la-philo_4155d7fc-4b7e-11e7-9fe8-035f9d604401/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=social_lefigaro&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1496854780

    I notice they mention a quote of Nietzsche's: "become who you are", which is a motto Richard Spencer has taken up. I like it myself.

    Julien Rochedy points out that the rap gets Nietzsche wrong on nihilism. Rochedy says they call Nietzsche a nihilist when he actually wrote against it:
    https://twitter.com/JRochedy/status/872521593045569536

    The IRA song you suggest I enjoyed, unlike the French language Islamic shite. They may leave France, as the English may leave Ireland.

  195. @Anonymous
    Nietzsche was aware of socialists and democrats in his day who purported to subscribe to his doctrines, and calling them “tarantulas,” told them to get lost in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

    'Behold, this is the hole of the tarantula. Do you want to see the tarantula itself? Here hangs its web; touch it, that it tremble!

    There it comes willingly: welcome, tarantula! Your triangle and symbol sits black on your back; and I also know what sits in your soul. Revenge sits in your soul: wherever you bite, black scabs grow; your poison makes the soul whirl with revenge.

    Thus I speak to you in a parable --- you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of the your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

    The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge" --- thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not" --- thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!"

    You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy --- perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers --- erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

    What was silent in the father speaks in the son; and often I found the son the unveiled secret of the father.

    They are like enthusiasts, yet it is not the heart that fires them --- but revenge. And when they become elegant and cold, it is not the spirit but envy that makes them elegant and cold. Their jealousy leads them even on the paths of thinkers; and this is the sign of their jealousy: they always go too far, till their weariness must in the end lie down to sleep in the snow. Out of every one of their complaints sounds revenge; in their praise there is always a sting, and to be a judge seems bliss to them.

    But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had --- power.

    My friends, I do not want to be mixed up and confused with others. Some preach my doctrine of life and are at the same time preachers of equality and tarantulas. Although they are sitting in their holes, these poisonous spiders, with their backs turned on life, they speak in favor of life, but only because they wish to hurt. They wish to hurt those who now have power, for among these the preaching of death is still most at home. If it were otherwise, the tarantulas would teach otherwise; they themselves were once the foremost slanderers of the world and burners of heretics.

    I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality. For, to me justice speaks thus: "Men are not equal." Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the overman be if I spoke otherwise?' Translated Walter Kaufmann, 1883/1954

    These words should strike a chord with any longtime iSteve-Reading Racist. Of course, today the tarantulas do have power, and their thirst for revenge and burning heretics is limited only by an increasingly obsolete body of constitutional/legal strictures that our tarantrulers are quickly working to dismantle. Decayed Nietzscheanism, one of the intellectual arms of the tarantulas, is a principal characteristic of the modern university, with leftists totally unmoved by Nietzsche's critique of Christianity/liberalism and its slave values. Nietzsche ran a tremendous risk in proclaiming the arrival of the overman, a risk whose proximate outcome was Nazism, and whose more distant consequence, in the wake and because of Nazism's defeat, was the hastening of precisely the outcome the doctrine was intended to forestall: the last man, who lives longest.

    Zarathustra is possibly the lamest crap I’ve ever read (well, about a third of it), up there with Wilde’s Dorian Gray. The passage you quote brings it all back: the wheezing invalid going on and on about natural inequality and the overman. Like many a macho man writer.

  196. @Achilles

    Nietzsche suggests, one can, like the lion depicted in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, overthrow, at least to some extent, one’s tradition and its various thou shalts, create one’s own values
     
    Nietzsche is rubbish. It's just another variation on the oldest false religion in the world ("you will be like God, determining for yourself good and evil").

    What Moses said was effective because people believed it came from God. Same for Jesus. Same for Mohamet with respect to Allah.

    The notion that one should simply 'man up' and be a superman and simply posit values you like and impose them as you are able fails, because unless people believe these actually come from God (or the gods or a supernatural dimension) they simply aren't very effective. They are just assertions from some dude who claims to be a superdude. They can be imposed only at the point of a spear or by bribing people to follow them.

    Atheistic existentialism is a con game. The idea that in the abyss is nothing, but yet by staring into it it will eventually supply you with some set of lifeforce values, is just nonsense.

    Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. Remember how the Soviets had to fall back on Russian nationalism.

    There are basic principles that most of our contemporary intellectuals are in deep denial of.

    First, 'Science' is incapable of supplying values. Science has nothing to offer in the way of prescribing standards of human behavior. What science can do, is tell you how to more effectively further a given set of values. Science can tell you what the most effective way is to gas the Jews; it cannot tell you whether it is right or wrong to gas the Jews.

    Second, naturalism is a failure scientifically. The postulated naturalistic mechanism of random mutation and natural selection has failed and no one has been able to rescue it. It's been a semantic shell game at least since Gould came up with 'punctuated equilibrium' if not before. It is incapable of supplying enough information. Information is the critical failure. Its defenders are con men who are grossly misleading their students and the public as to the information deficit in their postulated mechanisms. And it's not just the Cambrian explosion. There is a vast operation not directly perceptible to our limited capabilities of perceiving reality around us that is mediating an incredible amount of information into life forms on a continuing basis.

    These people selling naturalism and following it up with atheistic materialism are peddling a pack of lies.

    Nietzsche would have been happy as a clam at an ancient Greek homosexual orgy and everything on top of that was just an elaborate rationalization for why he should feel justified in doing so.

    ‘Atheistic existentialism as a concept simply cannot sustain civilization. And no one would sacrifice his life to preserve such a society. You would have to fall back on tribalism or racialism or nationalism or crudely indoctrinated hatred of an enemy or just threatening people with death in order to motivate people to fight to defend it. ‘

    Yes, I think that’s about right, and it’s where we’re headed. I personally find every single western religion deplorable and completely false. I wish I could believe, though, and always have wished thus. Much is beautiful in Catholicism, perhaps in Islam too (I know very little of it but have seen some beautiful architecture). Judaism I find revolting. But between fanatical Muslims and fanatical Jews, the tame, believe nothing European is about to be snuffed. For your own sakes, at least believe in your people!

  197. @Lot
    Mencken's antisemitism is forgiven because he disliked most everyone.

    Mencken’s antisemitism is forgiven because he disliked most everyone.

    He really, really liked Germans and Germany:

    He proudly proclaimed in his columns for the Baltimore Sun papers that, in the battle between autocracy and democracy, he wanted to see democracy go down. Mencken was enamored not only of the Kaiser’s autocratic rule, but with “the whole war machine.” He mocked Allied outrage over German killings of Belgian civilians, as well as the sinking of the S.S. Lusitania, which brought the death of 124 Americans. Hobson tells us that he advised Theodore Dreiser, a fellow German-American, that “there can never be any compromise in future men of German blood and the common run of ‘good,’ ‘right thinking’ Americans. We must stand against them forever, and do what damage we can do to them, and to their tin-pot democracy.”

    During the course of the war he was censored by the Sunpapers, but wrote three revealing articles for the Atlantic. The first, “The Mailed Fist and Its Prophet,” celebrated Nietzsche as the inspiration for the new Germany, which was “contemptuous of weakness.” Germany, as he admired it, was a “hard” nation with no patience for politics because it was governed by the superior men of its “superbly efficient ruling caste.” “Germany,” he concluded, “becomes Nietzsche; Nietzsche becomes Germany.” Mencken approvingly quotes Nietzsche to the effect that “the weak and the botched must perish. . . . I tell you that a good war hallows every cause.”

    The second Atlantic article, based on Mencken’s own reporting from the Eastern front in 1917, was a piece of hero worship that exalted General Erich Ludendorff as Germany’s “national messiah.” Mencken treasured the kaiser, but he thought Ludendorff was worth “40 Kaisers,” and was the man to lead German Kultur in its total war against Anglo-Saxon civilization. According to Mencken, the general’s greatness was to be found in the way that he had stamped out people’s individuality so that “the whole energy of the German people [could] be concentrated on the war.”

    The third, and most intriguing, essay–“After Germany’s Conquest of the United States”–talked about the benefits to America of being ruled by the hard men of a superior Kultur. Known only because of the exchange of letters between Mencken and the editor of the Atlantic, the article was withdrawn and never published. Interestingly, despite Mencken’s extraordinary efforts to document his own life, the manuscript, according to Vincent Fitzpatrick, curator of the Mencken collection, cannot be found. Mencken’s reputation, it seems, was saved by wartime self-censorship–in Boston, home of the Atlantic.

    Mencken had genuine cause for bitterness during World War I, when the excesses of zealous Americanism left him fearful for the safety of his family. But neither Rodgers nor his other biographers have noted the context of that hostility. While Mencken was touting the genius of Teutonic militarism, German saboteurs blew up the munitions depot at Black Tom Island off Manhattan. That strike, until 9/11 the most violent action by a hostile force in the history of the city of New York, caused $40 million of damage, sinking the island and its contents into the sea. The Kaiser’s plans to invade America might never have come off, but Germany plotted to bring Mexico into the war against the United States.

    The Sage of Baltimore needs to be placed in a broader intellectual context. The man who is still selectively celebrated by people like Rodgers, as if he were nothing more or less than an American iconoclast, was one of a number of anti democratic thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Some of them, like D.H. Lawrence, were proto-fascists; others, like H.G. Wells, were apologists for Stalin. But they all denounced democracy in the name of vitalism, eugenics, and a caste system run by an elite of superior men.

    His primary issue with Americans was that they weren’t German. He’s pretty big among American intellectuals because they share a common assumption, that the American hoi polloi aren’t good enough for them – they’re not properly appreciative of the pearls of wisdom cranked out by deep thinkers like Mencken.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    Mencken was wrong only because, alas, the Germans lost.
    Had they won, this world, the USA included, would be a much better place.
    An ordered society, a high culture with the greatest of the arts, music, not only being superlatively played, but still being created by men of genius, the Christian religion flourishing, its sacred rites unchanged by the chestless men of of a non-existent Vatican II, the Jews respected but kept within bounds, and converting to Christ at an ever increasing rate, and thus pulling their not inconsiderable weight for and not against Christendom, the tradesman as highly regard as the farmer, and he as the teacher, finally and best of all the subject peoples of Asia and Africa would still be subject and still living in their countries of origin.

    We would be what we had always been, but are no longer, the light-bearers of the world.

  198. @Alden
    Jack London was an ardent socialist. Why do liberals think he was a Nazi? Probably because he was a hetero White male.

    Soon liberals will proclaim that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Eugene Debs, Willian Jennings Bryan, Earl Browder and other liberal heroes were Nazis because they were hetero White men

    “Jack London was an ardent socialist. Why do liberals think he was a Nazi?”

    Because Nazis were socialists? (National Socialists.)

    But seriously, it’s because he’s a known racist. All the other names you mention were probably badthinkers too, but London has the reputation. Or the stigmata, if you will.

    Also, he wrote a book called the Iron Heel, which is a bit too close to the “jackbooted thug” stereotype.

  199. Who cares if Trump demanded loyalty, anyway? A president can’t have people loyal to him running his own branch’s departments? I find myself confronted daily by people aghast at perfectly normal things. (Not that normality is great altogether, but in this case…)

    Libs are daily proof of the old saying that a man who believes in nothing will believe anything. In the aggregate they’re constantly somewhere between feigning and genuinely experiencing whatever phony sensation or idea they need to keep the plates in the air. Having zero memory or principles, they contradict their previous positions as a matter of course.

    And yes, OMG PotUS says he expects “honest loyalty” from the FBI director, holy moly, call the hangin’ judge.

    Of course, Comey was completely lacking in loyalty to his elected boss, as he describes in his own statements. He was playing the snake from day 1.

  200. @guest
    I don't actually know much about Nietzsche's intellectual development, but I don't envy philosophers of his stripe growing up around that time. Victorian Idealism is a sickening affair. All this empty, blowhardy post-Christian substitute for Christian feeling without God. It's surprising more people didn't rise up and say forget about all that stuffiness, and let's have the fun, old kind of transcendence out in the open air. You know, with Blond Beasts roaming the prairie, ravishing maidens, eating wolves' hearts.

    Instead, we got weird, sickly virgins shut up in ivory towers babbling on for hundreds of pages about phenomena. How tempting it must have been to chuck out God, traditional morality, and even truth, listening to those blowhards. But, of course, there were other routes available. Schopenhauer, who's superior in every way to Nietzsche except readability, ended in pessimism, which wouldn't do for Nietzsche. But he saw the human (all too human) condition more clearly, and wasn't so childish. I don't see much point in being an enfant terrible. Not in the adult world of metaphysics.

    The main thing, though, is that Nietzsche didn't really go so radical. Or he did, but only in certain directions. Some roots he pulled out violently, others he didn't think of touching. I can see wanting to go beyond Kant, beyond Christianity, even, to escape the suffocating trap. But in going back thousands of years, he still stayed under Kant's thumb. It was Kant, after all, who convinced Western philosophy forevermore that we can't know anything. (Or we can't know anything "in itself," which is the same thing.) Nietzsche is still a Victorian Idealist, if a bratty one.

    Hey, how about you just chuck out Idealism? Who needs it?

    Schopenhauer, who’s superior in every way to Nietzsche except readability, ended in pessimism, which wouldn’t do for Nietzsche. But he saw the human (all too human) condition more clearly, and wasn’t so childish.

    Very, very true. After reading Nietzsche, I didn’t read Schop for a long time as supposedly N had surpassed him in so many ways, according to Kaufmann. What a revelation finally reading Schop!

    Entire passages in N read like he just ripped them off of Schop, and changed the value judgement.

    However, I would say that Schop is extremely clear and readable and quite delightful, its just that his subject matter – metaphysics – is necessarily more complex than N’s. But N had “transcended” metaphysics, of course. And N always strove for the cheap thrill, excitement, over depth.

  201. @Steve Sailer
    The Scopes Monkey Trial was more about Nietzsche than Darwin. Mencken, of course, was a huge Nietzsche fan, and Clarence Darrow had just saved Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty for murdering that poor kid to prove they were beyond good and evil or ubermensches or whatever their Nietzsche-inspired reason was. William Jennings Bryan was a pacifist (he'd honorably resigned as secretary of state in 1915 to protest Wilson's drift toward war) and he was concerned about how German militarists during the war had cited Nietzsche.

    Mencken had improperly Darwinized Nietzsche. First, by conflating the Schopenhauerian will to life with Nietzsche’s will to power. Then by thinking of the Overman as naturally superior in a Social Darwinian sense. As in, there’s a struggle in life and the biological aristocrats prove out. The slave morality of Christian altruism is diseugenic, because it doesn’t allow the fittest to prosper as individuals, or whatever. Basically, he equates Nietzsche with Herbert Spencer.

    Which would have driven Nietzsche mad, if he hadn’t been mad already. Because Darwin, as another poster pointed out, represented to Nietzsche petty, smallminded materialism. A very Anglo way to view the world, which Mencken, purported champion of German over Anglo culture, should’ve seen right through. The Overman and will to power concepts are about transcending gross matter. They aren’t about having a better biological inheritance.

    By the way, Mencken was against WWI, as well, though not for the same reason as Bryan. Henry would’ve preferred we jump in on the German side. Not because he was a Prussian militarist, but because he thought Anglo culture inferior and American interests to be on the other side.

    Bryan, for his part, was not entirely wrong about the baleful influence of these demonic philosophies. Darwinism and Nietzscheanism especially get inside people’s minds and inflame certain preexisting conditions. But Bryan wasn’t in any position to be giving Biblical exegesis on the stand. Someone who knew their stuff could’ve been sent in to run rings around Darrow.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that."

    "Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior."


    - Twilight of the Idols
  202. @Dieter Kief
    Irving Berlin sounds better, but Irving Berlin is the real defender of the Nation state, ehe.

    It’s Issiah Berlin who argued for the nation-state while the rest of liberal Europe was in an internationalization-frenzy. I had the wrong Berlin in my initial No. 41 post and tried somewhat unsucessfully to correct in No. 43. The warm Föhn-wind from the Swiss Alps does that to me.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    Winston Churchill shared your confusion, and once told Isaiah how much he enjoyed his musical comedies, thus presenting him with an splendid opening gambit at every dinner party (and they were many) he gracedwith his presence for the rest of his long life.

    My sympathies about the Föhn. It is indeed an energy sapping and intellect befuddling spectre.
  203. @Johann Ricke

    Mencken’s antisemitism is forgiven because he disliked most everyone.
     
    He really, really liked Germans and Germany:

    He proudly proclaimed in his columns for the Baltimore Sun papers that, in the battle between autocracy and democracy, he wanted to see democracy go down. Mencken was enamored not only of the Kaiser's autocratic rule, but with "the whole war machine." He mocked Allied outrage over German killings of Belgian civilians, as well as the sinking of the S.S. Lusitania, which brought the death of 124 Americans. Hobson tells us that he advised Theodore Dreiser, a fellow German-American, that "there can never be any compromise in future men of German blood and the common run of 'good,' 'right thinking' Americans. We must stand against them forever, and do what damage we can do to them, and to their tin-pot democracy."

    During the course of the war he was censored by the Sunpapers, but wrote three revealing articles for the Atlantic. The first, "The Mailed Fist and Its Prophet," celebrated Nietzsche as the inspiration for the new Germany, which was "contemptuous of weakness." Germany, as he admired it, was a "hard" nation with no patience for politics because it was governed by the superior men of its "superbly efficient ruling caste." "Germany," he concluded, "becomes Nietzsche; Nietzsche becomes Germany." Mencken approvingly quotes Nietzsche to the effect that "the weak and the botched must perish. . . . I tell you that a good war hallows every cause."

    The second Atlantic article, based on Mencken's own reporting from the Eastern front in 1917, was a piece of hero worship that exalted General Erich Ludendorff as Germany's "national messiah." Mencken treasured the kaiser, but he thought Ludendorff was worth "40 Kaisers," and was the man to lead German Kultur in its total war against Anglo-Saxon civilization. According to Mencken, the general's greatness was to be found in the way that he had stamped out people's individuality so that "the whole energy of the German people [could] be concentrated on the war."

    The third, and most intriguing, essay--"After Germany's Conquest of the United States"--talked about the benefits to America of being ruled by the hard men of a superior Kultur. Known only because of the exchange of letters between Mencken and the editor of the Atlantic, the article was withdrawn and never published. Interestingly, despite Mencken's extraordinary efforts to document his own life, the manuscript, according to Vincent Fitzpatrick, curator of the Mencken collection, cannot be found. Mencken's reputation, it seems, was saved by wartime self-censorship--in Boston, home of the Atlantic.

    Mencken had genuine cause for bitterness during World War I, when the excesses of zealous Americanism left him fearful for the safety of his family. But neither Rodgers nor his other biographers have noted the context of that hostility. While Mencken was touting the genius of Teutonic militarism, German saboteurs blew up the munitions depot at Black Tom Island off Manhattan. That strike, until 9/11 the most violent action by a hostile force in the history of the city of New York, caused $40 million of damage, sinking the island and its contents into the sea. The Kaiser's plans to invade America might never have come off, but Germany plotted to bring Mexico into the war against the United States.

    The Sage of Baltimore needs to be placed in a broader intellectual context. The man who is still selectively celebrated by people like Rodgers, as if he were nothing more or less than an American iconoclast, was one of a number of anti democratic thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Some of them, like D.H. Lawrence, were proto-fascists; others, like H.G. Wells, were apologists for Stalin. But they all denounced democracy in the name of vitalism, eugenics, and a caste system run by an elite of superior men.
     
    His primary issue with Americans was that they weren't German. He's pretty big among American intellectuals because they share a common assumption, that the American hoi polloi aren't good enough for them - they're not properly appreciative of the pearls of wisdom cranked out by deep thinkers like Mencken.

    Mencken was wrong only because, alas, the Germans lost.
    Had they won, this world, the USA included, would be a much better place.
    An ordered society, a high culture with the greatest of the arts, music, not only being superlatively played, but still being created by men of genius, the Christian religion flourishing, its sacred rites unchanged by the chestless men of of a non-existent Vatican II, the Jews respected but kept within bounds, and converting to Christ at an ever increasing rate, and thus pulling their not inconsiderable weight for and not against Christendom, the tradesman as highly regard as the farmer, and he as the teacher, finally and best of all the subject peoples of Asia and Africa would still be subject and still living in their countries of origin.

    We would be what we had always been, but are no longer, the light-bearers of the world.

    • Agree: BB753
  204. @Dieter Kief
    It's Issiah Berlin who argued for the nation-state while the rest of liberal Europe was in an internationalization-frenzy. I had the wrong Berlin in my initial No. 41 post and tried somewhat unsucessfully to correct in No. 43. The warm Föhn-wind from the Swiss Alps does that to me.

    Winston Churchill shared your confusion, and once told Isaiah how much he enjoyed his musical comedies, thus presenting him with an splendid opening gambit at every dinner party (and they were many) he gracedwith his presence for the rest of his long life.

    My sympathies about the Föhn. It is indeed an energy sapping and intellect befuddling spectre.

  205. @Anon
    Sorry! In my defense it was one of the less enjoyable episodes, creepy and far fetched.

    Eh, no worries. As is the case with many television adaptations of murder mysteries, it’s MM’s setting and characters that delight; the plots are hit-or-miss anyway.

  206. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Need I say Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation? Although he was a Lutheran pastor’s son.

     

    Might that be better phrased 'Nietzsche hated Luther and the Reformation because he was a Lutheran pastor's son?'

    We rebel most zealously against that which we know best.

    The only one who could ever reach me, was the son of a preacher man.

  207. Nietzsche’s rehabilitation ….

    “Fred” is popular when it comes to his sayings that are related to critic of “Western Metaphysics” and the philosopy of language, via Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida and postmodernism …

    but his crankish statements and what he literally said and apparently believed is not rehabilitated, in the field of health, politics, biology, cosmology, physics … for instance Fred’s theory of “eternal recurrence of the same” was his sincere cosmological belief, and he thought it was a physical fact and a great discovery …enthropy and termodynamics made it moot as a physical theory, but it seems to be reinterpretated by Heidegger and the structuralists meaning something different …

    The reappraisal of Fred happened inside the tradition of continental philosophy that has more influence inside the humanities and literary studies in USA, than in the field of the academic, technical, analytical Anglo-Saxon philosophy that has split apart from the continental tradition …

    I read Genealogy of Morals long time ago, and there was one statement that I wanted to check .. Fred said that the Greek words “aristos” good, noble, and “arete” virtue are related to the Sanskrit word “arya”, good, noble, an aryan, coming from the same protoindoeuropean root …

    Very hard to find either confirmation or refutation in the net, it’s like “don’t go there”

    Aristotle/Aristoteles = a Guy with an Aryan Goal/Purpose
    Aristophanes= dude looks like a true Aryan
    Aristocracy= rule of the Aryans

    etc

    But it’s commonly acknowledged that “Iran” means “land of the Aryans”, so they are bad and should be destroyed.

  208. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    But, at least, Nietzsche wasn’t an essentialist.

    Heidegger argued that Nietzsche was the last essentialist. Heidegger says that the history of philosophy is the history of thinkers positing different essences for what is really real and underlies all reality, beginning with Plato and the Forms, Aristotle and substances, the Scholastics and God, Descartes and the subject/object, scientists with atoms, etc. The metaphysical essence that Nietzsche asserts is the Will to Power. The Will to Power is the thing or force or principle that underlies all reality. As Nietzsche wrote, “the world is the will to power – and nothing besides!”

  209. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    Mencken had improperly Darwinized Nietzsche. First, by conflating the Schopenhauerian will to life with Nietzsche's will to power. Then by thinking of the Overman as naturally superior in a Social Darwinian sense. As in, there's a struggle in life and the biological aristocrats prove out. The slave morality of Christian altruism is diseugenic, because it doesn't allow the fittest to prosper as individuals, or whatever. Basically, he equates Nietzsche with Herbert Spencer.

    Which would have driven Nietzsche mad, if he hadn't been mad already. Because Darwin, as another poster pointed out, represented to Nietzsche petty, smallminded materialism. A very Anglo way to view the world, which Mencken, purported champion of German over Anglo culture, should've seen right through. The Overman and will to power concepts are about transcending gross matter. They aren't about having a better biological inheritance.

    By the way, Mencken was against WWI, as well, though not for the same reason as Bryan. Henry would've preferred we jump in on the German side. Not because he was a Prussian militarist, but because he thought Anglo culture inferior and American interests to be on the other side.

    Bryan, for his part, was not entirely wrong about the baleful influence of these demonic philosophies. Darwinism and Nietzscheanism especially get inside people's minds and inflame certain preexisting conditions. But Bryan wasn't in any position to be giving Biblical exegesis on the stand. Someone who knew their stuff could've been sent in to run rings around Darrow.

    “Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.”

    “Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.”

    Twilight of the Idols

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    "The free man is a warrior"
     
    One of Nietzsches biggest accomplishments in life was his friendship with Rilke and the later friend of Freud and writer and psychoanalyst and psychoanalytic theorist Lou Andreas-Salomé.

    He even fell in love with Andreas-Salomé. The famous picture with the women with the whip - that's Lou Andres-Salomé.

    Now -Andreas Salomé used to laugh, when she heard of Nietzsche's latest warrior-fantasies.

    And that was precisely because she understood the very puberterian nature of Nietzsches war- and warrior and overman-statements - and this very nature of his super-manly statements was compensative: Those things were all what most of the time ill or at least ill-tempered and/ or depressed and definitely fragile and super-polite introvert loner and early pensioner Friedrich Nietzsche - was absolutely not.

    Lou-Andreas Salomé has not yet found a decent biographer. Last year, there was a German biopic movie about her, which at least was not bad. Something like the movie A Dangerous Method about Sabina Spielrein, Freud and Jung by David Cronenberg would be just great. This time it could be about the opium-eater and mega-assoziative writer Nietzsche and the lunatic poetic genius Rilke - and the sexual healing and mental refreshment powers of the well spirited and bright enough Lou Andreas-Salomé. The ideal actress for this wrole would be a women with a big unforced laugh (at the right moments), who knows how to move.

    Might be quite some dreamer myself too, ehem.

  210. @Anonymous
    "Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that."

    "Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior."


    - Twilight of the Idols

    “The free man is a warrior”

    One of Nietzsches biggest accomplishments in life was his friendship with Rilke and the later friend of Freud and writer and psychoanalyst and psychoanalytic theorist Lou Andreas-Salomé.

    He even fell in love with Andreas-Salomé. The famous picture with the women with the whip – that’s Lou Andres-Salomé.

    Now -Andreas Salomé used to laugh, when she heard of Nietzsche’s latest warrior-fantasies.

    And that was precisely because she understood the very puberterian nature of Nietzsches war- and warrior and overman-statements – and this very nature of his super-manly statements was compensative: Those things were all what most of the time ill or at least ill-tempered and/ or depressed and definitely fragile and super-polite introvert loner and early pensioner Friedrich Nietzsche – was absolutely not.

    Lou-Andreas Salomé has not yet found a decent biographer. Last year, there was a German biopic movie about her, which at least was not bad. Something like the movie A Dangerous Method about Sabina Spielrein, Freud and Jung by David Cronenberg would be just great. This time it could be about the opium-eater and mega-assoziative writer Nietzsche and the lunatic poetic genius Rilke – and the sexual healing and mental refreshment powers of the well spirited and bright enough Lou Andreas-Salomé. The ideal actress for this wrole would be a women with a big unforced laugh (at the right moments), who knows how to move.

    Might be quite some dreamer myself too, ehem.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Rilke, as far as I know, never met Nietzsche. At the time Lou - Andreas Salomé became acquainted with Nietsche, she was living with Paul Rée, a Jewish German philosopher.
  211. @Sid
    Nietzsche was also an arch individualist, which contrasted with Fascism's collectivist ideology. As such, a lot of people who read Nietzsche at face value come away thinking that Nietzsche would NEVER endorse Fascism, because he was an individualist and they weren't!

    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, "What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?"

    The best autocracy is master-morality for the autocrat and slave-morality for everyone else.

    Yup.

    For those who want that sort of thing anyway.

    Here’s a truth about me.

    I want to be the sort of person happy to reign alone and be God of the Universe but thus far there appears to have been some sort of bug in the system that, in practice, has kept me from actually enjoying that.

    This may sound made up and it’s true that many people lie or exaggerate here and elsewhere so I understand if you don’t believe me but there have been a couple of dozen instances where I could have easily started a following. Where people almost literally worshipped me. In their eyes I was a guru in whom they wanted to disolve their identites.

    Again, I fully expect not to be believes by some and that’s fine.

    But my point is that I genuonely didn’t like it and would shoo people away. It sort of disturbs me that I don’t and didn’t like it, as something aeems to be saying that I should want to be a God (to be fully honest, for the unbridled control of sexual slavery, a virgin-like fantasy despite my non-virgin status, perhaps because I started late due to religious restrictions).

    But anyway, I found it repulsive. And now I don’t even let it start. As soon as it begins I stress the importance of his/her individuality and get away.

    Part of why this has disturbed me is on account of my enjoyment in Nietzsche but ultimately I humbly (and tentatively) defer. Perhaps a love of man and appreciation of his/her ego-existant individuality is just as legitimate as the psychopath’s desire for Power.

    I’m still working on myself (to desire being an ubermentsch [is it shklav moral that keeps me from snatching and controlling it?]) so perhaps (hopefully?) I will psychologically healthily desire and, if not chase it, accept it when it arrives to kiss my shoes.

  212. @Lot

    Second, with his proto-Tom Wolfe prose style, he’s extremely readable for a German philosopher (think Kant, Hegel, Heidegger; Marx, a snarky bastard, throws in a lot of fun sarcasm in his prose but is still a pedant).
     
    I agree Kant, Hegal, and Heidegger are awful to read. Das Kapital is in the same awful style. But Marx's letters are witty and enjoyable, and The Communist Manifesto I think ranks at up near the top right below Common Sense for propaganda prose quality. Both the first and last paragraphs have become cliches.


    A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.



    The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!
     
    This is good too:

    Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc.

    Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

    The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

    No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

    The lower strata of the middle class – the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

    ...

    The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

    In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
     

    Yes, Marx wrote clearly and offered some excellent and clear-sighted and stunningly accurate (and enduring!) observations that, were we not so enslaved and cowed, would open our eyes and cause a hippie revolt such as seen in the 20s and 60s. (Or so I’ve heard.)

    By tge way, if you can let go of obsessively following every word and just relax while taking this in I’ve found it more emotionally edifying than text.

    Again, it requires a relaxed state of mind and a lack of intellectual concern with catching every word rather than getting the feeling, as you would from a song on the radio.

  213. @Anonym
    In fact, Mussolini read Nietzsche when he was a socialist and thought, “What if everyone lived according to collectivism, except for me, and I get to do what I want?”

    Which Communist leader didn't make that connection? Wasn't that kind of the point all along? Mao apparently had loads of concubines. Castro as well. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    https://youtu.be/BbLdAWef9C8

    That is not the ending of Animal Farm

  214. @Whitehall
    For an easy to read German philosopher, try Schopenhauer.

    In many ways he anticipated sociobiology based on observation and reason.

    His concept of will as life
    should be useful in how we understand and develop artificial intelligence too.

    Yes, Schopenhauer is good.

    I really enjoy reading old writers about things that are still relevant to us. Whether it is Shakespeare on the relationship between man and wife, or the prophets of the Bible on morality, or Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Mencken on women, etc.

    Some insights from an era outside of our own can be illuminating and lasciviously engrossing.

  215. @Father O'Hara
    Would he have been an anti-Semite had he been born in the same year as Adolf Hitler?

    Nietzsche? Yiu’ve got to be kidding. I mean OBVIOUSLY circumstances can nake anybody anything but not only did Nietzsche despise the characteristics of gis race while admiring the newly cone-by characteristics of Jews but he was as opposed to fascistic groupthink as anyone could be. Unless of course he or someone he admired was the fuhrer. But the average Nazi? He would not be one of them nor would he be able to contain his food when he beheld one.

  216. @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/872118209100390401

    Wait, what??

    Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50? Can that be right?

    What drugs, what race, what gender??

  217. @Felix..

    On the other hand, Nietzsche’s preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values sound like a John Milius screenplay or an alt-right Tweet: “Steppe barbarian. Nationalist, Fascist, Nudist Bodybuilder! Purification of world. Revolt of the damned. Destruction of the cities!”
     
    There is nothing preposterous about such values. What is the difference between the West of today, on the verge of collapse and annihilation, and the West of yesterday, the virile conqueror of the world and self assured linchpin of the scientific revolution? It is not the baseline level of competence that has changed, but the transition from "preposterous hear-the-lamentations-of-their-women values" to "slave morality" values.

    Are you implying, Steve, that if given the choice between the two polarities, you would choose the "slave morality" and extinction over the "preposterous" will to power values? If so, wherefore this blog? You should be a big fan of the NYT editorial page as it is a perfect encapsulation of the "slave morality" and as far as conceptually possible from "preposterous" will to power as you can get.

    (Of course, the NYT editorial page is actually one of the most brilliantly executed manifestations of "the will to power" we've had the privilege to witness in human history, when you think about "who" writes it to influence "whom", but that's too meta for the point I was trying to make.)

    I share your like for the idea but I fear it is utter bullshit, both as actually enjoyable for anyone but psycopaths as well as having any long-term actual (rather than imaginary) historical context outside of inherited royalty and slave owning.

    I do agree however that (Trump and select others aside) the Ubermentschen are pretending to be Untermentschen to an impressive, and imitation-worthy respect.

  218. @anonymous
    If memory serves, Kaufmann was himself a Jew.

    Of courae, and his introduction includes a paean to his people as the new Nietzschists. In fact he says that were the Jews gentiles and the gentiles Jews thousand years ago they would have succeeded (where historically actual gentiles did not) and utterly wiped out the historical Jews.

    In fact it is quite safe to say from a reading of the Nazi greats (and common sense doesn’t hurt) that the egoism and individual greatness of emancipated Jews was the majority reason for why the German Greats felt they needed to be wiped out. It’s quite fascinating actually and flies full in the face of the modern left’s belief that the nazis regarded the jews as inferiors. They feared them as superiors but also recognized that this individualism would make them easy to conquer as the odds of a revolutionary fuhrer arising among them and being accepted by the masses wasn’t much of a problem. And indeed, pretty much everywhere it turned out not to be – something that revolted me and animated my Judaic Nationalism from about ages 19-23.

  219. @AM
    It's not off topic. If you go to your MD, listless and depressed, and they won't tell you to pray or go to church or stop with the sugar or shut off the TV and get outdoors but give a referral for more drugs and pointless chatting what did we think we're going to get? After a while the line between legal and illegal is just a formality.

    It sounds like Nietzsche never came up with a solution, but he at least understood the consequences of "God is dead and we have killed him"

    I hate the internet.

    It hath become worse as ages.

    Seriously. I just spent 5 minutes trying to find the precize zarathustra quote when he meets the saint and is shockingly surprised (and jealous) to hear that the saint in the forest has not heard rhat god is dead.

    INSTEAD I came across page after page of remedial “explanations” for what people have decjded Nietzsche meant.

    Anthow, here is the beautiful, and I mean truly beautiful, early Xarathustra quote.

    As a man of religious intensity it inspires me to penance.

    —-

    (The formating misses the occasional paragraph break)

    Zarathustra answered: “I love mankind.”

    “Why,” said the saint, “did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?
    Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me.”

    Zarathustra answered: “What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men.”
    “Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them—that will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee!

    If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!”

    “No,” replied Zarathustra, “I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that.”
    The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: “Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts.
    The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?

    Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like me—a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?”

    “And what doeth the saint in the forest?” asked Zarathustra.

    The saint answered: “I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.

    With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?”

    When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: “What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!”—And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.

    When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!”

  220. @Dieter Kief

    "The free man is a warrior"
     
    One of Nietzsches biggest accomplishments in life was his friendship with Rilke and the later friend of Freud and writer and psychoanalyst and psychoanalytic theorist Lou Andreas-Salomé.

    He even fell in love with Andreas-Salomé. The famous picture with the women with the whip - that's Lou Andres-Salomé.

    Now -Andreas Salomé used to laugh, when she heard of Nietzsche's latest warrior-fantasies.

    And that was precisely because she understood the very puberterian nature of Nietzsches war- and warrior and overman-statements - and this very nature of his super-manly statements was compensative: Those things were all what most of the time ill or at least ill-tempered and/ or depressed and definitely fragile and super-polite introvert loner and early pensioner Friedrich Nietzsche - was absolutely not.

    Lou-Andreas Salomé has not yet found a decent biographer. Last year, there was a German biopic movie about her, which at least was not bad. Something like the movie A Dangerous Method about Sabina Spielrein, Freud and Jung by David Cronenberg would be just great. This time it could be about the opium-eater and mega-assoziative writer Nietzsche and the lunatic poetic genius Rilke - and the sexual healing and mental refreshment powers of the well spirited and bright enough Lou Andreas-Salomé. The ideal actress for this wrole would be a women with a big unforced laugh (at the right moments), who knows how to move.

    Might be quite some dreamer myself too, ehem.

    Rilke, as far as I know, never met Nietzsche. At the time Lou – Andreas Salomé became acquainted with Nietsche, she was living with Paul Rée, a Jewish German philosopher.

  221. You’re right – it was Paul Rée, not Andreas-Salomé’s later love René Rilke (that’s how he was named, before he met Andreas-Salomé), whom Nietzsche befriended together with Lou.

    You’re right too, Rée was of jewish origin. But by the time he met Nietzsche, he had converted to Lutheranism.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    Indeed, Paul Rée used to be Nietzsche's best friend. So there's that, for those who say Nietzsche was some kind of Hitler. And, despite her Jewish - sounding surname, Lou-Andreas Salomé wasn't Jewish at all, but a Russian with French and German ancestry.
    Curt P. Janzwrote an extensive biography of Nietzsche's, for those interested.
  222. @Dieter Kief
    You're right - it was Paul Rée, not Andreas-Salomé's later love René Rilke (that's how he was named, before he met Andreas-Salomé), whom Nietzsche befriended together with Lou.

    You're right too, Rée was of jewish origin. But by the time he met Nietzsche, he had converted to Lutheranism.

    Indeed, Paul Rée used to be Nietzsche’s best friend. So there’s that, for those who say Nietzsche was some kind of Hitler. And, despite her Jewish – sounding surname, Lou-Andreas Salomé wasn’t Jewish at all, but a Russian with French and German ancestry.
    Curt P. Janzwrote an extensive biography of Nietzsche’s, for those interested.

  223. @eah
    OT

    https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/872118209100390401
  224. @Lagertha
    Have always been drawn to Nietzsche. In fact, his words are the best when expressing condolences after tremendous loss: "invisible strings are the strongest ties."

    invisible strings…..should have been: Invisible threads.

  225. > Whatever credulity and wishful thinking is required to believe in virgin birth and resurrection pales in comparison to the wishful thinking and mental gymnastics that all the replacement Christianities regard as inviolable dogma.

    How about replacing Christianity by what it replaced?

  226. @Steve Sailer
    The Scopes Monkey Trial was more about Nietzsche than Darwin. Mencken, of course, was a huge Nietzsche fan, and Clarence Darrow had just saved Leopold and Loeb from the death penalty for murdering that poor kid to prove they were beyond good and evil or ubermensches or whatever their Nietzsche-inspired reason was. William Jennings Bryan was a pacifist (he'd honorably resigned as secretary of state in 1915 to protest Wilson's drift toward war) and he was concerned about how German militarists during the war had cited Nietzsche.

    I would argue that Nietzsche is important for being the first notable thinker to deduce the implications of Darwin, not only for Christianity, but for the whole western tradition of philosophy since Plato, especially philosophical morality. The 21st-century flourishing of serious research in evolutionary psychology (Tooby, Cosmides, Buss, Haidt, etc.) is arriving at conclusions foreseen by Nietzsche. Perhaps the most striking is the parallel of Nietzsche’s concept of master/slave moralities to the theory of r/K-selected life/mating/reproductive strategies (e.g., rabbits/wolves) and the group behaviors each would predict.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2