>What Nietzsche is concerned with is the contrast of those who have power with those who lack it. And he investigates it by contrasting not individuals but groups of people. The distinction therefore tends to become sociological, as the consequences of oppression are considered. In spite of the polemical tone, it does not follow from Nietzsche's ‘vivisection’ of slave morality that he identifies his own position with that of the masters. Nietzsche's own ethic is beyond both master and slave morality. He would like us to conform to neither and become autonomous.How the FUCK did this utter and complete nonsense become the mainstream interpretation of Nietzsche?
>>23317924what, you think you're fucking better than me?
>>23317924Kaufmann wrote that? Embarrassing.
>>23317941i don't think there's any question that nietzsche idolized a certain period of greek nobility. i think the problem with this passage of kaufmann is that he doesn't quite capture the fact that it was nietzsche's fatalism that prevented him from naively advocating the adoption of those past norms, rather than any positive belief in the inherent superiority of "being autonomous" (an idea of which nietzsche wasn't especially fond, anyway ["many of those who can command themselves can not yet obey themselves" etc.)
>>23317924Whether you hate/love Kaufmann is based on myriad motivations, this is also not the 1960's anymore so if you want to read Nietzsche in English there are plenty of options. As far as Kaufmann's ideas are concerned even if you hate him his works made Nietzsche popular outside Germany, I personally find some of his conclusions laughable, others interesting, and my biggest criticism might be that he glossed over several of Nietzsche's works in arriving at an existential outcome. All of this aside, he is sanitized Nietzsche and sanitized Nietzsche's works, you can argue about whether he over-sanitized and there are notable arguments to be made in this regard. He cannot really be robbed of his achievements though, and whether you love/hate him he is still pretty high on the totem pole of Nietzsche interpretations and translations. If you do not care for Kaufmann then do not read Kaufmann, he no longer has a monopoly and there are plenty of Nietzsche translations if you cannot read German, there are also more interpretations of Nietzsche available than there honestly should be at this point, and all of them usually fall short due to the nature of Nietzsche's works. I also will point out that several notable authors and thinkers have looked to Nietzsche for inspiration and regretted it later, that is the nature of the Nietzsche-sphere, just as much potential for damage as there is for profit. The fact that Kaufmann has made it this long and is still highly regarded and talked about is proof he could make in the Nietzsche-sphere, if you really hate him that much then do a better job yourself.
>>23318078>>23317974>>23317941>>23317924>At age 11, finding that he believed neither in the Trinity nor in the divinity of Jesus, he converted to Judaism. Kaufmann subsequently discovered that his grandparents were all Jewish.
>>23318458wow i wonder why kauffman fought so hard to sanitize and whitewash nietzsche and steer readers away from illiberal conclusions. i guess we'll never know.
>>23318462What's the consensus on Nietzsche, National-Socialism, and fascism? Isn't it that they, meaning the core intellectuals of fascism, basically cherry-picked his writings? To my understanding, Nietzsche likely would've written polemically about fascism's extreme statism, particularly its conformity, or am I mistaken? I haven't really seriously engaged with Nietzsche.
>>23317924>How the FUCK did this utter and complete nonsense become the mainstream interpretation of Nietzsche?Kaufman means merchant. early life history
>>23317924It's as bad as Kojeve's Hegel. This kind of shadow-boxing - if it even is intentional - serves only obscurantist revisionist purposes.
>>23318569He wasn't much of a political thinker. He was all about the Great Man theory of history where select individuals decide to course of history and elevate culture. Napoleon and Goethe. He did hate "modern ideas" such as democracy, socialism, and feminism though. So make of that what you will.The academic consensus is that Nietzsche would've hated the Nazis and fascists because if you say otherwise soon Nietzsche will become anathema. Everyone sort of collectively agrees to pretend the Nazis "misinterpreted" Nietzsche just so academics can keep making careers out of studying him. Oh and he wrote a few letters about how he dislikes antisemites (despite decrying the Jews as the ultimate moral slaves in his own writings) so I guess he can't be a proto-Nazi. That's literally the extent of their argumentation, or they make up some bullshit about how Nietzsche is actually a leftist because he questions power dynamics (as Kauffmann in this excerpt does)
>>23319685>he wrote a few letters about how he dislikes antisemitesI've considered this to be so because, although he doesn't like Jews, to dislike them due to their success (the core of anti-semitism during Nietzsche's time, I believe) is slave morality.
>>23319685/thread
>>23319693*didnt
>>23319693This is probably it, there is also the personal aspect of it. Many Germans, even highly educated ones, were antisemitic in a very vulgar way. So for Nietzsche there was probably an element of>there's nothing worse than a dumb guy agreeing with your pointkind of view. He didn't want to be associated with "the antisemites" of his time.
>>23319699for example, Jared Taylor wouldn't want to be on the same team as a redneck in Alabama, it just looks bad for his position
>>23317924Nietzsche wrote drivel to capture an unsatisfied man with fantasies of power, while neutering his real effectiveness. Sitting in the corner and repeating Nietzsche like a parrot feels amazing, doesn't it?>Umm ackshyually Nietzsche said the opposite in Thus Shat Zebra on page 123Thanks for proving my point.
>>23319693That’s true. His problem with anti-semites was also that they hated jews because their success was due to their maintenance of an in-group based on ethnicity/culture, which is actually a good thing. Basically “you hate them for having what you wish you could have.” The nationalist anti-semitic German would say “we Germans need to stick together, maintain our culture, control the institutions, and take care of our own” but dislikes the Jews for doing the same thing.As much as I like Nietzsche, however, it’s obvious that he’s failing to comment on the fact that Jews were disproportionately involved in certain parts of German societies and held disproportionate institutional power. The more you know about Nietzsche’s influences (ie, Wagner, a notoriously passionate anti-Semite) it starts to seem like Nietzsche’s dislike of anti-semitism might’ve just been in part due to his psychological need to distance himself from and/or tear down Wagner.
>>23319705Here’s your (You) you attention-seeking faggot. You type like a tranny.
>>23319699This is extremely likely as well. Nietzsche thought he was smart as fuck (he was, of course) and absolutely did not want to be associated with the common, base, vulgar anti-semitism of the pedestrian German. He constantly criticized Germans, and even claimed to be Polish
>>23319712>Jews were disproportionately involved in certain parts of German societies and held disproportionate institutional power.Jewish IQ, which is approximately higher than the white-gentile of 100 by 7–15 points, doesn't justify the disproportional power that Jews yield. I'm presuming here, but given that Jewish high-IQ is likely genetic, it is to be correlated, that is, IQ, to the degree of Jewish heritage one has. The average score of self-identified Jews is probably around 109–110, as most Jews aren't fully Jewish. To my understanding, you only need to have a Jewish mother to be recognised as Jewish. I don't want to explain this in all its detail as I'll be typing for a while, but the crux of it is that Ashkenazi Jews are extremely high in sub-clinical psychopathological traits. 'Pure' psychopathy is around 1% of the population.It's not uncommon in fact, it's 15% of the population, which gets much, much higher as you ascend the hierarchy. IQ alone just can't explain Jewish overrepresentation. Google it, tell me it doesn't explain Jewish behaviour, like, to a tee. I'm still developing this, tho.
>>23319764Overrepresentation of Jews wouldn't necessarily be a problem if their political goals weren't opposed to the goals of the "gentiles" in their host countries.
>>23319775I think mass migration is partly due to economic concern, which is some what fair as Europe's populations are aging rapidly. This increases the dependence ratio, but transnational corporate giants also need fresh people to bleed dry, and wages to suppress. I also, to be honest, think that Jews both don't identify with whites and hate us to a degree. I think you can imagine the reasons for both points.The correlation between various political beliefs and IQ is too low if we want to go there, like 0.06 or 0.17 correlations, with the latter being the largest you'll see, which is tiny. Correlations only have real predictive power at around 0.60 and 0.70, I believe.Japan has no Jews, but they're letting in Africans by the thousands, so it can't just be Jews.>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azFcV1vcyH4>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azFcV1vcyH4>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azFcV1vcyH4
>>23317924>How the FUCK did this utter and complete nonsense become the mainstream interpretation of Nietzsche?Perhaps by reading him thoroughly. Its fairly easy to find passages that back this up. He even says that there is no objective moral compulsion to value being a slave over being a master. He thinks that if you love being a slave you should absolutely be a slave. But, he says that for himself and 99% of humanity, we would choose master every time when given a choice.
>>23319685>>23319693he said "the jews are the strongest, purest, toughest race in europe" in BGE and he proposed to a jewish woman three times. he was an open philosemite, i'm pretty sure he even coined the word
>>23319685This is the neo-nazi version of what people are calling out Kaufmann for. It wasn't "just a few letters," it's in the books.
>>23319714The internet is serious business anon. Better regurgitate some Nietzsche at me.
>>23319828>>23319841In the same books he said Jews were at the forefront of the slave revolt in morals. He praised them for surviving and having a great "will to life" but that's about it. He also congratulates them sarcastically for winning the battle of Rome vs Judea and for launching Christianity but in case you missed it, Nietzsche wasn't a big fan of Christianity
>>23319693He fell out with Wagner over his anti-semitism for the simple reason that Nietzsche (rightfully) saw it as stemming from a place of insecurity. This is what most disgusted Nietzsche about German nationalism, and why he presented himself as a Pole instead. By our standards however, Nietzsche was unquestionably antisemitic. He fundamentally believed in an end to Judaism as an identifiable creed brought about by their intermarriage with Germans - which was considered a very tame 'solution' by the standards of late 19th century German nationalists. I don't know why there is so much dishonesty around Nietzsche's relationship with the Jewish Question. Its not a topic he ever hesitated from writing about, and as a political issue its not something open to interpretation. Its all there for anyone willing to find out what views he held on the matter.
>>23319963It's the same with the endlessly repeating quote where Schopenhauer "disavows" nationalism because most nationalists are only proud of their country because they have no personal accomplishments to be proud of. Sure, maybe. But "nationalism" in Schopenhauer's day meant arguing whether the Germans or the Russians produced the best poets, or if Italian opera is superior to French opera. As if Schopenhauer, transported to the world of today, would be anything but a staunch nationalist, seeing what has become of Europe.
>>23317924>What Nietzsche is concerned withNEETzsche is not concerned with anything. He is an illiterate cretin.
>>23319948if he "blamed" anyone for the fall of the greco-roman project, it was certainly paul, and not the jews. in the later works (specifically antichrist and genealogy of morals) he draws a bold line between the earlier judeo-christian thinkers whom he actually admires (he quite earnestly refers to christ as "the evangelist") and paul and "the first christians" (spiritually manifested in paul, the "dysangelist") who immediately mistook christ and wrote the vengeful book of revelationsbut why am i talking to someone who took from BGE that "slave morals are evil." nietzsche didn't even think slave morals were BAD, to say nothing of EVIL. careless readers easily confuse his distinction between master and slave morality along the lines of good/evil vs. good/bad as saying, "master morality is good because good/bad is the right dichotomy, slave morality is bad because good/evil is the wrong dichotomy." and people try to bolster this argument by showing that he didn't believe in evil. but he's clearly making a historical/genealogical argument that power is consequentialist: not only would it not make sense for him to see slave morality as "evil" (since there is no evil), in BGE he details the mechanism by which the jews "denatured" their racial god into the universal god of christianity as an ironic means of racial preservation against the romans. it's not that slave morality is even functionally lesser than master morality, it's simply a different expression of the will to power
>>23319948Well at least you did the reading. Not sure why you would then insist on presenting him as a nazi-compliant as if that does anyone any favors. Kaufmann went through a lot of trouble to get you permission to read Nietzsche>>23319971>As if Schopenhauer, transported to the world of today, would be anything but a staunch nationalist, seeing what has become of Europe.The problem with doing this exercise is that nearly anyone born before 1950 would disagree with living in a giant supermarket where you can only rent food.
>>23319999>it was certainly paul, and not the jews.you wrote this entire paragraph based on the delusion that you made up in your mind that I somewhere said "Nietzsche says slave morality is evil". lol
His dislike of antisemites almost exlusively stems from his resentment and bitterness felt towards Wagner and the volkisch movement. It's the ultimate nietzschean thing to do to ideologize personal animosity.
>>23320067>he congratulates them sarcastically for winning the battle of rome vs judeais more what i was responding to. you clearly put some kind of value judgment on slave morality bc you dropped "the jews were at the forefront of the slave revolt in morals" as if this is some kind of condemnation. but you obviously have nothing of substance to say here
>>23320074Nietzsche disliked Christianity and what he calls "modern ideas" (democracy, socialism, feminism) which are both outgrowths of slave morality. He didn't use the word "evil" and neither did I, but it's obvious he was against these things and sought to overcome them. Tell me how that's wrong.
>jews succeeding in being resentful is good and master morality because temporal success means they are ideologically correct
>>23320077but it's not just a continuous line like that. think of it like an animal producing a poison for self defense, which is then used in a murder. it's senseless to blame the one who naturally makes the poison to defend themselves; again, if there is any blame, it rests with the one who uses the poison offensively, as a tool of underhanded hypocritical sophistry
