>But it's uhh "secularized Christianity". Ignore that this phrase makes as much sense as "Marianophobic Catholic", "necklet giraffe" or "Jewish Nazi"

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

If you can't see the gigantic civilization-destroying issue with this kind of idealization of humanity, then you're ngmi. Your cult can write page after page of cope but it doesn't address the fundamental flaws in values that pervade the Bible and lead to societal decline.

>Human Vitae
More cope written by a LARPer, forgotten by more and more day by day. And yet Nietzsche remains.

Sorry your dad didn't love you enough to save you from your Jew cult bub

>>23545614
Nietzsche is talking about the historical effects of Christianity not its teachings. OBVIOUSLY

>>23545663
You have the same mindset as a Protestant. You ignore how Christianity has ACTUALLY been practiced by the Church for 2,000 years and just focus on overly-literalistic Bible readings through a modern historical-critical lens where Jesus was some kind of proto-socialist who was primarily a political agitator.

>>23545673
Its teachings and how they've actually been carried out in the real world don't exist in separate universes. Maybe looking at its historical effects would actually give insight into the real meanings of those teachings...

>>23545677
Who cares how Christianity has been actually practiced? This is about the effects it has had on European culture

>>23545683
Did you even read that sentence before you sent it off?

>>23545688
It doesnt matter one bit that Christianity is "spiritual" while Marxism is "materialist" if the latter is the product of the former

>>23545614
My favourite is when they claim that the Christian things they like are actually pagan relics.

>>23545702
Like what

>>23545696
How is it the product of the former? It was created by an atheist ethnic Jew who abandoned the nominal Lutheranism of his family as a teenager, who was influenced by atheist French political philosophy.
Marxism nowadays is only even in control in countries that were never Christian like China. All the Christian societies in Eastern Europe overthrew it, which shows it's repugnant to Christians.

>>23545706
I didn't say it was, I said it doesn't matter if Marxism is materialist or if its creator was a Jewish atheist as long as it historically proceeds from Christianity
Are you a Christian? You people always place a lot of importance on the dogma because you haven't realized that it's all nonsense

>>23545713
I'm asking how it proceeds from Christianity, because to me Marxism seems like a complete rejection of Christianity.
And yeah I am. I'd say I'm putting only as much emphasis on dogma as is deserved. A lot of Nietzchean types put way more emphasis on their distorted view of Christian dogma than I am and ignore the actual history of Christianity.

>>23545663
>it doesn't address the fundamental flaws in values that pervade the Bible and lead to societal decline.
Secularism and feminism has done more to utterly cuck the West than Christianity ever could, no matter how hard it tried.
>And yet Nietzsche remains.
Yeah, among edgy leddit atheists who probably think God is le bad and a heckin meanie because no pee-pee in pussy before marriage is tyranny :(
>Sorry your dad didn't love you enough to save you from your Jew cult bub
The jews psyoping Christiniaty does not make the core foundation of Christianity le bad. Yeah, I'll take the warnings the Bible gives us on jews being the synagogue of satan over the "based" secularists who want to cut kids's genitals up and simp for Pedowood jewish elites.

>>23545717
I think the Nietzschean case is understandable if you look at it in a macro scale
On one hand we have pagan culture which affirms inequality, on the other modern culture which rejects it - and it just so happens that one of the most powerful influences on modern culture is a religion which proclaims that all men are spiritually equal, that the meek shall inherit the earth, that the last shall be the first, etc. It's not ridiculous to see some kind of connection between these two facts
Nietzschean types are not interested in Christian dogma or eschatological history because they are engaged with larger-scale patterns of shifting cultural attitudes, not metaphysical articles held at one time or another
>>23545730
The Nietzschean case then would be that feminism follows from Christianity, you can back that up by saying that Christianity proclaimed the equal personhood of men and women, made marriage more egalitarian, etc.

>>23545737
Ecclesiastical history I mean

>>23545737
Feminism is more a product of luxury than Christianity. Compare imperial Rome, where women were 'emancipated' to a great degree with Puritan New England or Tsarist Russia or wherever, where women were totally subjected to their husbands.

>>23545620
>Ignore that this phrase makes as much sense as "Marianophobic Catholic"
possibly valid way to describe some Protestants
>"necklet giraffe"
giraffe with below average neck
>"Jewish Nazi"
weev

>>23545748
True

>>23545696
This is such dishonest cope. The marxists and bolsheviks were blatantly anti-Christian and atheists. They didn't even try to hide it. Please explain how creating a movement after rejecting Christianity means Christianity produced it. You can't because you're a disingenuous tranny

>>23545748
You could probably say that luxury leads to softening of manners but there was no concerted intellectual movement to liberate women in imperial Rome as there was in Christian (or post-Christian) Europe
>>23545754
>Please explain how creating a movement after rejecting Christianity means Christianity produced it.
What I'm saying is that you can reject Christianity but still be greatly influenced by it. A boy can rebel against his father but he still remains his son

>>23545737
>The Nietzschean case then would be that feminism follows from Christianity
Completely wrong. Have you not read history or are you being willingly disingenuous? The origins of feminism were explicitly occultist, as in, they genuinely embraced goddess worship and schizo witch larping. Feminism only began to take hold after its ((founders)) completely rejected Christianity and blamed it on the concept of God creating patriarchy. Why would they want to overthrow traditions of marriage if Christianity had already made it egalitarian, according to you?

>>23545774
>The origins of feminism were explicitly occultist, as in, they genuinely embraced goddess worship and schizo witch larping. Feminism only began to take hold after its ((founders)) completely rejected Christianity and blamed it on the concept of God creating patriarchy
Whether the origins of feminism are like that or not, it doesn't matter - you can reject Christianity, or any dogma, and still be influenced by it
>Why would they want to overthrow traditions of marriage if Christianity had already made it egalitarian, according to you?
I didn't say marriage was made egalitarian, I said it was made more egalitarian.

>>23545764
>What I'm saying is that you can reject Christianity but still be greatly influenced by it
Really, dude? That's your definition of "greatly influenced"? So if I want to hang all pedos, does that mean that I'm "greatly influenced" by pedophilia and therefore makes it pedophilia by proxy?

>>23545677
>You ignore how Christianity has ACTUALLY been practiced by the Church for 2,000 years

The practice varies by year/epoch, race, country. Practice is more relative than the central document that establishes the framework of values. Practice is downstream of values. It's those values which Nietzsche criticizes, and those values that culminate in beliefs that are causing societal issues right now (eg importing Somalis)

>>23545706
>>23545717
You clearly haven't read any Nietzsche judging by these statements, you have to know your enemy if you're gonna argue against his work

>>23545730
>Secularism and feminism has done more to utterly cuck the West than Christianity ever could, no matter how hard it tried.

Galatians 3:28

>Yeah, among edgy leddit atheists
Not a serious argument

>The jews psyoping Christiniaty does not make the core foundation of Christianity le bad

The core foundation of Christianity is LITERALLY Judaism. How can you not question the strength of a 2000 year old movement that was easily co-opted by small hats within a few decades?

>>23545754
Blatantly anti-Christian, and yet their values align through idealization of the meek. Where do you think the values of the Marxists came from? Marx just randomly created values from thin air, not based on any cultural conditioning he was exposed to growing up?

>>23545783
>I didn't say marriage was made egalitarian, I said it was made more egalitarian.
I can see you're running out of steam. Getting overly pedantic doesn't change the fact that what you're arguing is not only historically wrong but doesn't make any sense logically.

>>23545794
Nah

>>23545801
I think everything I said has been quite sensible

>>23545799
>Galatians 3:28
>he doesn't know a woman is subordinate to the man
How's that for equal?
>Not a serious argument
I'm sure all those cringe Nietzsche reddit threads are just a product of Christianity somehow
>How can you not question the strength of a 2000 year old movement that was easily co-opted by small hats within a few decades?
Define a few decades. The small hats have co-opted a ton of things, not just Christianity.
>The core foundation of Christianity is LITERALLY Judaism
The core foundation of Christianity is Jesus Christ, who the jews outwardly hate and believe He is burning in excrement. They also beat people up in Israel for speaking of Jesus.

Btw, ever notice how the only time jews support Christianity is when they're simping for Israel or when it's this faggot new-age version of Christianity? Really makes you think.

>>23545815
Saying stuff that is against recorded history is not "sensible"

>>23545799
Marx rejected his cultural conditioning which is the whole point that’s been made throughout this thread. He wrote Satanist poetry in Lutheran Germany, as a descendant of Rabbis. He was raised in ultra hierarchical Prussia, and he became a radical egalitarian.

>>23545834
When have I contradicted recorded history

>>23545774
>>23545801

Your bias is showing. Equality of the soul is a core value of Christianity, regardless of historical practice; it's baked into the central document. Egalitarianism becomes the logical conclusion of equality of the soul. Feminism becomes the logical conclusion of egalitarianism. And so on.

Europe did not place great value on equality before Christ (notwithstanding Plato). There was no central grand document that outlined this value as divine or important. Anything you see today regarding equality as important was popularized by Christianity.

>>23545799
Please show me where Jesus Christ or any Christian before 1980 said “importing Somalis” is a Christian value.

>>23545799
>Blatantly anti-Christian, and yet their values align through idealization of the meek.
>because me and my enemy like the color red, that means the color red is le bad

>Where do you think the values of the Marxists came from?
I never said they came from thin air, nothing does. But anything that is luciferian is a perversion/reversal of what is. Who do you think actually helps the poor? The stateless society Marx proposes that will inevitably starve its own people? Or the society that has structure that can feed workers or give charity to the lower class?
Pro-tip: The latter is promoted by Christian nations, not communists.

>>23545846
non-historical tedium that doesn't reference any historical sources. Rome and Athens were more feminist than ANY society prior to 1870

>>23545857
Can you explain how Athens was feminist

>>23545846
Christianity says only a select few will be saved and most will burn in hell for eternity, and outside of a few random heresies, hasn’t ever supported worldly equality. How is it more egalitarian than Greco Roman paganism, where there were proto communists like the Epicureans?

This thread at least shows that Kikestians really are retarded

>>23545846
>Equality of the soul is a core value of Christianity
In a way, yes. But I would add the caveat that all souls are equally judged by God.
>Egalitarianism becomes the logical conclusion of equality of the soul
Nope. You almost had it. One doesn't imply the other and in material reality, it's actually impossible. For thousands of years humans, Christians and atheists alike, knew that there were inherent differences in men and women, for example. That's why egalitarianism is a bogus proposition that reality (a.k.a. God's law) rejects.
>Europe did not place great value on equality before Christ (notwithstanding Plato).
See >>23545857

>>23545873
>ahistorical nonsense gets btfo
>uhh le xtians are le bad because uhh I misread the bible and saw a 1 minute video about Evangelical zionists on twitter, or something

>>23545614
This is the standard cope for both right wing Christians and secular humanists, pretending that they're two completely unrelated species that just so happened to emerge out of the same society.
There's a reason that when Christianity was first introduced to Korea and Japan, it was immediately seen as subverting their traditional Confucian order, just as the ancient Romans saw it as subversive of their social order.

>Marx was a Jew and therefore Marxism is inherently Jewish/Satanic
As if Judaism and Christianity are unrelated, but that doesn't even matter because Marx's primary influence was not Judaism but Hegel and Feuerbach, who were very clearly influenced by Christianity in their eschatology, ethics and progressive view of history, which Marx inherited.

>Christianity must actually be a based, violent, Nietzschean warrior religion because of [insert historical Christian warlord here]
Once again, you and the antitheists would agree on this one, but it's obviously false. Christianity is and has always been essentially pacifist, but as with any pacifist movement (including the progressive ones you've listed) achieving the ultimate peace you believe your religion will bring about will likely require you to fight against the forces opposing it. That same zeal is what motivated both Christian and communist violence in the past. There is nothing of fascism or paganism's celebration of violence and strength for its own sake in Christianity, it has always been toward the end goal of creating eternal peace.

I say this as a believing Catholic and certainly not a leftist, but you have to recognise that the lefties you hate are not some alien species but your wayward cousins. If you suck out the ethical core of Christianity and replace it with your epic redpilled, Putin/Orban/Codreanu ideology, what you are left with is obviously not Christian but paganism in Christian dress.

Previously Christianity knew how to balance the seeming tension between the hierarchical visible church and the egalitarian invisible church. Popes would wash the feet of lepers, kings would wear sackcloth, the concept of noblesse oblige, but since the Enlightenment this balance has broken down. It saddens me.

>>23545873
>no argument

>>23545886
>Christianity is and has always been essentially pacifist
Matthew 7:6
Matthew 10:34
1 John 4:4
Revelation 22:12 (btw, Revelation is a whole book on justice over evil that will be sent to a pit of fire to burn eternally. Super le peaceful, I agree)

>but you have to recognise that the lefties you hate are not some alien species but your wayward cousins
To a certain extent, I agree. But like I said in a previous post. It's one thing to try and warp reality to what you want it to be (a.k.a. leftists) versus seeing the world as it is and building hierarchy over nature's laws (a.k.a. rightoids). There's a way to actually help the poor and there's a way to fuck them over.

>>23545836
>Marx rejected his cultural conditioning

By starting a movement that values the meek over the rich?

>>23545849
There are dozens of Christian churches and NGOs actively importing Somalis into white countries. THAT is active Christian practice whether you deny it or not.

>>23545854
Yes Christians have been providing aid to Africans for decades now. That is THE ISSUE.

>>23545857
>Erm... source? Do you have a source for that? Can you provide me a historical document that explicitly backs up your claim? Source?

Roman culture was explicitly patriarchal for centuries, retard.

>>23545864
Really? You don't think equality is promoted in the Bible in any form?

>>23545879
>Nope. You almost had it. One doesn't imply the other and in material reality, it's actually impossible.

You misunderstand reality and history; the average person is a retard (see this thread for example) and what logic is not universal. Values change over time but are linked to past values regardless of their strict logical relationships.

>>23545883
>we did it we btfo da neechens!!! now we can kiss nigger feet!!!

>>23545873
It's a plague on the global right which needs a suitable moral/spiritual framework to replace it.

>>23545886
Thank you for your honesty.

>>23545944
>There are dozens of Christian churches and NGOs actively importing Somalis into white countries. THAT is active Christian practice whether you deny it or not.
But your own argument is that only the values matter. And there are more Christians active in right wing nationalist movements than there are Christians who work at refugee resettlement agencies. This is such a stupid argument.

File: 482390482390.png (1.04 MB, 1920x1920)

1.04 MB PNG

>>23545944
reddit spacing and mass replying. you're done here

>>23545614
Retarded calvinist.

>>23545614
He never said any of that

>>23545978
The Calvinists don't have a monopoly on the term "elect"
>>23545985
But his self-proclaimed followers do, and those are the people I'm talking about.

If you're over the age of 20 and still take Nietzsche seriously, you didn't get bullied hard enough in high school.

>>23545997
harsh but ultimately.... fair

>>23545953

If the values can be interpreted to lead to this practice, they are outdated values. Even if the le trad RW cathcucks won and killed all the leftist NGOs, the exact same thing will happen again in 200 years because that's how people interpret those values when economic abundance becomes the norm

File: 1000003700.jpg (122 KB, 1200x1200)

122 KB JPG

>>23545958

>>23545994
The view you espoused was a calvinistic view of atonement. Christ died for all.

>>23545997

Anti-intellectual sentiment is not helping your movement

>>23546041
If you actually read Nietzsche you'd know he actively railed against "intellectualism" as just another facet of society he thought life-denying.

>>23546026
>can't defend mass-replying reddit spacing
>deflects and changes the subject
gg ez, redditor.

>>23546029
Yeah but not all will accept Him

File: 1698877685244.jpg (127 KB, 533x799)

127 KB JPG

>>23546075

>>23546066
>Nietzsche defends against reading Nietzsche

ok wiseguy

>>23545857
>Rome and Athens were more feminist than ANY society prior to 1870
Oh my, he's retarded. Do you even know the slightest thing about Athenian society?

File: 73189273128.png (420 KB, 858x913)

420 KB PNG

>>23546135
It's over for Joe

>>23545702
nothing good in christianity is original, only evil

>>23545730
>Secularism and feminism has done more to utterly cuck the West than Christianity ever could
Christianity gave birth to both. You haven't read Nietzsche at all, have you?

>>23546518
>takes 1800 years after Christianity develops to develop feminism
>it's definitely Chirstianity's fault though
ahistorical claptrap

>>23546542
>the amount of time matters because...

>>23546542
>>23546548
Also, 1800 years is fucking nothing. Homo sapiens were patriarchal for tens of thousands of years. Then we got Christianity and in less than 2 we have feminism.

File: smug-superior.gif (13 KB, 556x640)

13 KB GIF

>>23546542
>>23546548
>>23546550
>written philosophy invented
>then feminism only a couple millennium later

>>23546558
Where's the connection? The connection between Christianity and feminism is obvious: God makes everything equal, it's a dangerous (and completely unrealistic) concept.

>>23546563
>makes everything equal
Try reading the bible if you actually want to be intellectual lmao. slavery is a permitted institution and men and women are specifically called different beings with different roles

>>23546570
I've read the Bible. Monotheism is a fundamentally equalizing belief system. Polytheism is superior for this reason.

>>23546576
That doesn't respond to the fact that christianity permits slaves and doesn't allow women to lead religious services. But that's cool mate.

>>23546598
Christianity permitting slaves doesn't change the fact that it doesn't acknowledge the existence of different minds (i.e., monotheism) and therefore shrinks consciousness rather than expands it.

>>23546140
Nietzsche never wanted to be remembered as an intellectual or a philosopher. He actually wanted to be remembered more than anything as a composer and a poet, but this never caught on because his efforts in these mediums were regarded as mediocre.

>>23546518
Your line of thought is something to behold. To the point whether I don't know if you're pulling my leg.

Serious question: did paganism come out as a response to Christianity? If it didn't, then your point is dogshit. Feminism can be traced back to paganism and occultism, literally. If you want a bit of a less schizo terminology, essentially the first ((feminists)) were heavy into goddess worship and witchcraft. At what point do you determine that something came from something else and blame it on that? Wouldn't paganism be the root of everything going wrong and not Christianity, using your logic?

>>23546026
>>23546135
kek and the funny may-mays are out. You lost, fedora

>>23546630
>Serious question: did paganism come out as a response to Christianity?
"Paganism" is a revisionist term applied to preexisting religions, so no.

>Feminism can be traced back to paganism and occultism, literally.
You confuse consciousness of the other with servile worship of the other. Christian society gave birth to feminism, not pagan religions, which were healthy in their consciousness of the other and thus capable of maintaining a distance from it.

>>23545944
>Yes Christians have been providing aid to Africans for decades now. That is THE ISSUE.
>Marxists starving people for "equality" is the same as giving aid to the poor
>B-BECAUSE IT JUST IS, OKAY?!
kek nice goalpost shift. If anything the Nu((judeo))-Christians giving aid to Israel and immigrants are the issue.
You misunderstand reality and history; the average person is a retard (see this thread for example) and what logic is not universal. >Values change over time but are linked to past values regardless of their strict logical relationships.
Reddit wordslop. Reality is reality. You can't make a woman a man or vice versa, as an example. Christianity acknowledges this but I can't say the same about the fedora-wearing secularists who dunk on le fascists.
>inb4 "b-but Christianity actually made trannies possible!!"

>>23546642
>"Paganism" is a revisionist term applied to preexisting religions, so no.
That's my point. If the original feminists used pre-existing religions's ideals, how is it Christianity's fault again?
>Christian society gave birth to feminism, not pagan religions, which were healthy in their consciousness of the other and thus capable of maintaining a distance from it.
Such dishonest cope, man. I'll just say that the big bang made feminism possible, therefore your whole argument is disproven. That's how dumb you sound.

>>23546666
>If the original feminists used pre-existing religions's ideals, how is it Christianity's fault again?
The difference here is monotheism is not an evolution of polytheism, but a devolution from it. It is a narrower belief system. Feminism, on the other hand, is an evolution of monotheistic dogma — of course society would end up believing that women could just as easily be men as men. It takes a polytheistic approach to nature to recognize that men and women have their own separate domains.

File: 4832904823421.jpg (101 KB, 1920x1080)

101 KB JPG

>>23546576
>>23546690
>>23546611
>>23546642
>>23546690
Are you a 40+ year old boomer wiccan that developed schizophrenia?

>>23546703
Do you have an argument to put forward?

>>23546716
You didn't answer my question. Inquiring minds want to know!

>>23546723
Ad hominem is the mark of a coward who can't admit he's wrong. I'm 32, not a wiccan or schizophrenic. None of these assumptions make sense and don't address the point.

>>23546734
Why so sensitive? I haven't interacted with you ITT. schizophrenia can be viewed as a spiritual boon. Why are you not a wiccan?

>>23546765
>>23546716

>>23546767
>grrrr you must argue on a mongolian hamster blog
Again, why are you so sensitive? I haven't interacted with you ITT. schizophrenia can be viewed as a spiritual boon. Why are you not a wiccan? It would seem to go well with your beliefs

>>23546772
>Why are you not a wiccan?
Way too much bullshit, like any religion.

>>23546161
Not in Periclean Athens, but in Hellenistic Athens, yes.

>>23546576
even doe monotheism says any human can become a god if he grinds enough (ie Hercules)

>>23546908
>monotheism says any human can become a god
Which monotheist religion says that?

>>23546690
>if you believe in less god, it less better
Okay, that got a good chuckle out of me. It's really on me for falling for this bait for so long so gg

>>23547037
>*fart*

>>23547053
*Cums*

>>23545614
Nietzsche is not the only one who does this, there’s a weird trend of people who say anything they like about Christianity is pagan, and anything they don’t like about atheism is Christian. It’s very odd.
>you like historical Christian heroes? They were actually pagans, they just had a Christian veneer
>you like Christian holidays? Those are all pagan
>you like Christian art? It’s all pagan actually
>you hate Karl Marx? He was Christian
>you hate communism? But it’s Christian
>you hate secularism in general? Secularism is Christian
>you hate trannies and lgbt rights? But those are Christian

>>23547629
All of that is correct thoughbeit

>>23545754
>The marxists and bolsheviks were blatantly anti-Christian and atheists

Cronus killed Uranus. Zeus kills Cronus. Yet one begets the other.

>>23546518

And paganism gave birth to Christianity. Omg le pagans are such fucking tranny lovers.
Your brain

>>23545737
This is funny because Nietzsche is one of the people responsible for the growth of feminism in the West. What the fuck is feminism if not nihilism for women? What is a woman to stop being controlled by the patriarchy and live her own life if not a copy of the will to live. What is a woman not having children and focusing on her career if not an interpretation of the Letzter Mensch?

>>23548049
*will to power

>>23547957
It’s not analysis, it’s just incorrect labeling dressed up as analysis. Saying “I’m a pagan, but I think the entire Christian tradition is pagan, and secularism is Christian” is no different from saying “I’m a vegetarian who thinks broccoli is a meat and steak is a vegetable.”

>>23545677
>You ignore how Christianity has ACTUALLY been practiced by the Church
"Do people finally understand, do they want to understand what the Renaissance was? The *revaluation of all Christian values*, an attempt using all means, all instincts, all genius, to allow the *opposite* values, *noble* values to triumph .. <...> Attacking at the decisive spot, at the seat of Christianity itself, putting *noble* values on the throne, I mean into the instincts, *inside* the most basic needs and desires of the people sitting there ... I have a vision of a possibility, one that has a perfect, super-terrestrial magic and multi-coloured charm: <...> I see a spectacle so ingenious and at the same time so wonderfully paradoxical that it would have given all the Olympic gods cause for immortal laughter - *Cesare Borgia as Pope* ... Do you understand me? ... Well then, *that* would have been the victory that I am the only one demanding these days"

>>23545614
>>It's totally Christian because uhh...
Because it was produced BY the slaves FOR the slaves. Yet some faggot started applying it without any concern for context.

>>>Yep, Christianity is a cucked pacifist religion. Call up Charlemagne, Bohemond of Antioch, Ferdinand of Spain
"To call the domestication of an animal an 'improvement' almost sounds like a joke to us. Anyone who knows what goes on in a zoo will have doubts whether beasts are 'improved' there. They become weak, they become less harmful, they are made ill through the use of pain, injury, hunger, and the depressive affect of fear. - The same thing happens with domesticated people who have been 'improved' by priests. In the early Middle Ages, when the church was basically a zoo, the choicest specimens of the 'blond beast' were hunted down everywhere, - people like the Teuton nobles were subjected to 'improvement'. But what did an 'improved' Teuton look like after being seduced into a cloister? He looked like a caricature of a human being, like a miscarriage: he had turned into a 'sinner', he was stuck in a cage, locked up inside all sorts of horrible ideas ... There he lay, sick, miserable, full of malice against himself, hating the drive for life, suspicious of everything that was still strong and happy. In short, a 'Christian' ... To put the matter physiologically: when struggling with beasts, making them sick might be the only way to make them weak. The church understood this: it has ruined people, it has weakened them, - but it claims to have 'improved' them ..."

>>23548049
>This is funny because Nietzsche is one of the people responsible for the growth of feminism in the West
The correct take that Nietzchetrannies cope circles around. If leddit atheists almost universally take it as "so heckin deep", it's something to be ignored.

>>23547974
See >>23548025

>>23548025
>And paganism gave birth to Christianity.
"These men, these born organizers, have no idea what guilt, responsibility, and consideration are. In them that fearsome egotism of the artist is in charge, which stares out like bronze and knows how to justify itself for all time in the “work,” just as a mother does in her child. *They* are not the ones in whom “bad conscience” grew—that point is obvious from the outset. But this hateful plant would not have grown *without them*. It would have failed if an immense amount of freedom had not been driven from the world under the pressure of their hammer blows, their artistic violence, or at least had not been driven from sight and, as it were, made *latent*. This powerful *instinct for freedom*, once made latent—we already understand how—this instinct for freedom driven back, repressed, imprisoned inside, and finally still able to discharge and direct itself only against itself—that and that alone is what *bad conscience* is in its beginning."

>>23545614
Correct. In fact Spengler points out exactly this and dedicates an entire chapter to illustrating how the complete opposite is true if you actually look at the history rather than this vague sense of resentment for modern Germany.

>>23545614
>some 4th century pacifist Syrian monk who castrated himself
>anything Christian that does NOT fit that image that is not "really" Christian.

Correct. If the subject resists the direct instructions from 1 Corinthians 7:29-34, one is not "really" a Christian.

You were explicitly told that if you do NOT fit that image, you do not "care for the things that belong to the Lord".

>>23548462
I wouldn't trust Spengler to point out his own toes

>>23545614
>>23545620
>doesn't understand the concept, too focused on the label he adopted for culture-war purposes
typical chriskanger, thinks he's escaped the consequences of Christian rot by rolling about in it

File: 1719898045744144.jpg (82 KB, 890x791)

82 KB JPG

>>23545614
Yes, Christianity came from the south. Brown slave peoples jealous of blond Chad and Stacy. People like Nick Fuentes. It's not for me.

>>23545754
>tardlarper is unfamiliar with the concept of heresy
lol

>>23545857
They put women in Rome and Athens in charge of armies, businesses, entire provinces? Their legal codes had no sex-based discrimination?

>>23548674
?

>>23548683
>they put women in Rome and Athens in charge of
>businesses

nta, but yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Rome#In_business
"Although Roman society did not allow women to gain official political power, it did allow them to enter business."
"Women are known to have owned and operated brick factories."

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/antiquity-roman-female-merchants
"Ailia Isidora and Ailia Olympias weren’t the only female merchants in antiquity, says Carrie Atkins, an archaeology professor at the University of Toronto who has uncovered more than 20 references to female merchants in the early centuries of the Roman Republic."

>>23545614
Here's the biggest question to all Nietzsche tranny fedoras: what is the alternative to this current debauchery in our culture if not an agreed upon moral foundation that is against degeneracy? This "make up your own values and meaning) has clearly been detrimental.

>>23548719
>what is the alternative to this current debauchery in our culture if not an agreed upon moral foundation
eugenics

"On the other hand, it is, of course, just as necessary to attract the participation of physiologists and doctors to this problem (of the *value* of all methods of evaluating up to now). Also for this task it might be left to the faculties of philosophers in this single case to become advocates and mediators, after they have completely succeeded in converting the relationship between philosophy, physiology, and medicine, originally so aloof, so mistrusting, into the most friendly and fruitful exchange. In fact, all the tables of value, all the “you should’s” which history or ethnological research knows about, need, first and foremost, illumination and interpretation from physiology, in any case even before psychology. All of them similarly await a critique from the point of view of medical science. The question “What is this or that table of values and ‘morality’ *worth*?” will be set under the different perspectives. For we cannot analyze the question “Value *for what*?” too finely. Something, for example, that would have an apparent value with respect to the longest possible capacity for survival of a race (or for an increase in its power to adapt to a certain climate or for the preservation of the greatest number) would have nothing like the same value, if the issue were one of developing a stronger type. The well-being of the majority and the well-being of the fewest are opposing viewpoints for values."

>>23548719
>This "make up your own values and meaning) has clearly been detrimental.
"Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
Art thou one entitled to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free for what?"

"But wherever I found living things, there heard I also the language of obedience. All living things are obeying things.
And this heard I secondly: Whatever cannot obey itself, is commanded. Such is the nature of living things.
This, however, is the third thing which I heard—namely, that commanding is more difficult than obeying. And not only because the commander beareth the burden of all obeyers, and because this burden readily crusheth him:—
An attempt and a risk seemed all commanding unto me; and whenever it commandeth, the living thing risketh itself thereby.
Yea, even when it commandeth itself, then also must it atone for its commanding. Of its own law must it become the judge and avenger and victim.
<...>
That to the stronger the weaker shall serve—thereto persuadeth he his will who would be master over a still weaker one. That delight alone he is unwilling to forego.
And as the lesser surrendereth himself to the greater that he may have delight and power over the least of all,so doth even the greatest surrender himself, and staketh—life, for the sake of power."

>if not an agreed upon moral foundation
"Ye would still create a world before which ye can bow the knee: such is your ultimate hope and ecstasy.
The ignorant, to be sure, the people—they are like a river on which a boat floateth along: and in the boat sit the estimates of value, solemn and disguised.
Your will and your valuations have ye put on the river of becoming; it betrayeth unto me an old Will to Power, what is believed by the people as good and evil.
It was ye, ye wisest ones, who put such guests in this boat, and gave them pomp and proud names—ye and your ruling Will!
Onward the river now carrieth your boat: it *must* carry it. A small matter if the rough wave foameth and angrily resisteth its keel!
It is not the river that is your danger and the end of your good and evil, ye wisest ones: but that Will itself, the Will to Power—the unexhausted, procreating life-will."

>>23548715
Only 20? I guess they broke the cermanic ceiling a little bit

>>23548728
>eugenics
Eugenics alone won't solve anything. You still need some sort of objective moral foundation. Otherwise, it will always implode into the mass stupidity of "more black people than white le good" or "actually, breeding more mentally ill trannies is actually a positive" because of muh subjective morals. Otherwise, it's gonna run into the same problem every ideology has and get coopted by midwits who think they can bend reality to their own will.

>>23548705
Creating a counter-movement that explicitly rejects another movement is not possible without the pervasive influence of that movement, and there were many versions of non-orthodox Christianity which it succeeded against. What it has struggled with are atheists who promise the utopia here and now and that the wicked wielders of power be punished immediately.

>>23548772
>Only 20?
All swans are white, yes. No black swans exist. Only 20.

>>23548776
>You still need some sort of objective moral foundation.
Translation: dynamic evolutionary filter, that culls off the maladapted.

>objective moral foundation
Only if you believe that you have won the Magic Lottery Ticket, that self-complacently puts your behavior pattern as the objective norm.
Otherwise, you are damned from birth. And you >>23548491 are. Do not fucking procreate.

>>23548179
Marxism wasn't produced by the slaves thoughbeit. Like 90% of the original Marxists were bourgeois.

>>23548803
>Marxism wasn't produced by the slaves though
Correction: by a sick slave-herder for a slave-flock

>>23545614
Nietzsche, like many German philosophers lived in the realm of idealism and aesthetic. They don't really care about history or logic in the way the English did. For them, to control oneself is to be a slave. Life has no purpose but to experience sensation. A Nietzschean could not give a reason why the BLM riots of 2020 were bad. These were peopled asserting their will of being. How is the LGBTQ movement anything other then the peak of dionysian vigor?

Everything that Trads/reactionaries/conservatives/right wingers/ect.. dislike today is perfectly consistent with Nietzschean ethics, yet were supposed to believe these problems are actual an outgrowth of puritanism and Cromwell. Its absurd.

>>23548787
They were likely exceptional or widows assuming control of the business. There was no effort among the Roman or Greek business communities analogous to how we operate under feminism to make the shipping or construction industries more female because it was morally indefensible to have male dominated economic spheres

>>23548827
>A Nietzschean could not give a reason why the BLM riots of 2020 were bad.
It was an assault on property owners by a mob of urban poor and their handlers. You are just making things up to deflect from your own ideology

File: But That's Wrong, You Fuc(...).jpg (10 KB, 250x250)

10 KB JPG

>>23548827
>For them, to control oneself is to be a slave.
"Resistance—that is the distinction of the slave. Let your distinction be obedience. Let your commanding itself be obeying!
To the good warrior soundeth “thou shalt” pleasanter than “I will.” And all that is dear unto you, ye shall first have it commanded unto you."

>Life has no purpose but to experience sensation.
"But it is not the danger of the noble man to turn a good man, but lest he should become a blusterer, a scoffer, or a destroyer.
Ah! I have known noble ones who lost their highest hope. And then they disparaged all high hopes.
Then lived they shamelessly in temporary pleasures, and beyond the day had hardly an aim.
“Spirit is also voluptuousness,”—said they. Then broke the wings of their spirit; and now it creepeth about, and defileth where it gnaweth.
Once they thought of becoming heroes; but sensualists are they now. A trouble and a terror is the hero to them.
But by my love and hope I conjure thee: cast not away the hero in thy soul! Maintain holy thy highest hope!"

>>23548839
>property owners
You mean the Bourgeoisie who Nietzsche despised more than anything in the world? Thanks for proving my point.

>>23548827
>A Nietzschean could not give a reason why the BLM riots of 2020 were bad.
" ‘Freedom’ ye all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in ‘great events,’ when there is much roaring and smoke about them.
And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events—are not our noisiest, but our stillest hours.
Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve; inaudibly it revolveth.
And just own to it! Little had ever taken place when thy noise and smoke passed away. What, if a city did become a mummy, and a statue lay in the mud!
And this do I say also to the o’erthrowers of statues: It is certainly the greatest folly to throw salt into the sea, and statues into the mud.
In the mud of your contempt lay the statue: but it is just its law, that out of contempt, its life and living beauty grow again!"

>>23548844

Obedience to what is the key. Nietzsche is talking about obedience to a inner will, a self asserting spirit. He believes this will is exemplified in the solider and war. War in his mind in the greatest experience. This why one should follow all orders. He is not talking about what the English would understand as "duty". For them, duty mean restraining your desires and dreams for the whole. Nietzsche duty is like Goethe. Its to playout the story of your life in its most dramatic way.

>>23548856
Sure, he didn't like them either, but the only reason he would "side" with the rioters would be to critique the feckless owners who voted for them to be able to riot.

>>23548904
That point is that his philosophy can't give a reason to dislike the rioters. If he didn't like them then that just makes him a hypocrite(which is what plagues most Nietzschean and "Might make right" bros").

>>23548844
>Obedience to what is the key. Nietzsche is talking about obedience to a inner will, a self asserting spirit.
"Let your love to life be love to your highest hope; and let your highest hope be the highest thought of life!
Your highest thought, however, ye shall have it commanded unto you by me—and it is this: man is something that is to be surpassed."

"Ye crowd around your neighbour, and have fine words for it. But I say unto you: your neighbour-love is your bad love of yourselves.
<...>
Do I advise you to neighbour-love? Rather do I advise you to neighbour-flight and to furthest love!
Higher than love to your neighbour is love to the furthest and future ones; higher still than love to men, is love to things and phantoms.
The phantom that runneth on before thee, my brother, is fairer than thou; why dost thou not give unto it thy flesh and thy bones? But thou fearest, and runnest unto thy neighbour.
<...>
Let the future and the furthest be the motive of thy today; in thy friend shalt thou love the Superman as thy motive."

"But even your best love is only an enraptured simile and a painful ardour. It is a torch to light you to loftier paths.
Beyond yourselves shall ye love some day! Then learn first of all to love. And on that account ye had to drink the bitter cup of your love.
Bitterness is in the cup even of the best love: thus doth it cause longing for the Superman; thus doth it cause thirst in thee, the creating one!"

>He believes this will is exemplified in the solider and war.
"I know the hatred and envy of your hearts. Ye are not great enough not to know of hatred and envy. Then be great enough not to be ashamed of them!
And if ye cannot be saints of knowledge, then, I pray you, be at least its warriors. They are the companions and forerunners of such saintship."

>He is not talking about what the English would understand as "duty". For them, duty mean restraining your desires
"What could be more destructive than working, thinking, feeling, without any inner need, any deeply personal choice, any pleasure? as an automaton of 'duty'? It is almost the recipe for decadence, even for idiocy ... Kant became an idiot."

>>23548919
>his philosophy can't give a reason to dislike the rioters
"Who do I hate most among the rabble today? The socialist rabble, the Chandala-apostles who undermine workers' instincts and pleasures, their feelings of modesty about their little existences, - who make them jealous, who teach them revenge ... Injustice is never a matter of unequal rights, it is a matter of claiming *'equal'* rights ... What is bad? But I have already said it: everything that comes from weakness, from jealousy, from *revenge*. - The anarchist and the Christian are descended from the same lineage"

>>23548919
>If he didn't like them then that just makes him a hypocrite
I don't think this is a serious dilemna outside of poorly thought through Christian apologetics which consists of identifying Nietzsche as an atheist nihilist hedonist badman dumdum and not engaging further. Obviously, having people burn down cities because they don't like the repression of their co-ethnics' criminality, or they feel they have the right to do so as members of a victim class, etc. comes from a position of ressentiment, and it would be impressive for that to be a blind spot were Nietzsche alive to remark on it given that motive so preoccupied his judgment of action. Now on the other hand, and as I said, he would be critical of the people who allowed this too, not just the moralizing rioters and riot apologists, because they were indeed weak enough to allow this outbreak so there is that sense that one should push what is falling. And indeed the sort of doughy American conservatism where you must prove you are a good liberal to have an opinion against liberalism is going away, and in no small part in response to watching this sort of thing play out

>>23548972
to this one >>23548892

>>23548972
Thanks for proving the quotes that proved my point.

>>23548972
From where does the last exceprt come from?
I want to read it.

>>23549008
excerpt*

>>23548974
This isn't about him being a hedonist or anything. Its about his belief of greatness being unrestrained and that this greatness is known(not from dedication to principles) but from survival and victory. I'm sure that his vision of the liberated man victorious looked nothing like the hippies at woodstock or the BLM mob. But that is in-fact the liberated man who stood victorious at the end of all things.

>>23548995
>Thanks for proving the quotes that proved my point.
Thanks for proving that you are a 2-digit iq animal.

Let's try again, shall we?
>>Obedience to what is the key
Obedience to whatever Zarathustra has commanded unto you, retard.

>>a inner will, a self asserting spirit.
Not your "self"'s spirit, as it turns out, retard. But a "further" phantom of "Superman", represented by your "friend".

>>He believes this will is exemplified in the solider and war.
Except that he explicitly told you that "Ye are not great enough" and you are not a "saint of knowledge" then, nigger. Crucial, important difference.

>>He is not talking about what the English would understand as "duty".
1. Kant is not an Englishman.
2, If you fap on "duty" as blind obedience, then you physiologically are a 2-digit iq animal.

>>his philosophy can't give a reason to dislike the rioters
Except that the reasons were given. Revenge bad, nigger.


>>23549008
>From where does the last exceprt come from?
Antichrist, #57

>>23549014
you're just repeating yourself saying Nietzsche is reponsible for the meek inheriting the plasma screen TV's at Best Buy, as if you didn't understand anything said to you; I accept your concession

>>23549025
>He doesnt want you to obey yourself. He wants you to obey Zarathustra.

Do you not understand symbolism? Zarathustra IS the Will to Power. The inner self will and if followed will lead to the superman. How do you not get this? Nietzsche is opposed denying one self pleasure. Its his fundamental critique of Parsifal. Any talk he has of "submission" is "submission to ones dreams and desires.

>>23548777
Then you can't create any counter movement without having to appeal to the previous one. So literally anything you can come up with, no matter how secular or anti-Christian, could be dismissed as "well, that's actually crypto-Christianity!"if we go by that logic, which is dumb as hell. You'd have to call Christinity crypto-paganism, too.

It's also an obvious take in that of course everything is in effect to another thing, always. So nothing profound is being said here.

>>23549037
How are they meek if they stand victorious over the strong? This is the Nietzschean problem, and its plagued most of German history.
>The English are a bunch of shop keepers. No real spirit for war and life.
The English prevent Germany from empire.
>The US and Russia are countries of peasants with no soul. No warrior spirit.
The US and Russia decidedly crush Germany in combat.

Meek has no meaning in this philosophy. The "meek" are the one toppling kings, conquering the globe, and going to the stars. The strong elite and crushed, being decapitated, getting executed in basements, and living off the charity of the "meek". Its nonsensical.

>>23549052
>Do you not understand symbolism? Zarathustra IS the Will to Power.
"Verily, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he hath deceived you."

" Then was there again spoken unto me without voice: “What matter about thyself, Zarathustra! Speak thy word, and succumb!”
And I answered: “Ah, is it my word? Who am I? I await the worthier one; I am not worthy even to succumb by it.” "

>>He doesnt want you to obey yourself.
Your "self" is a nuanced and overloaded concept, and retards have a sick version of it.

>>Nietzsche is opposed denying one self pleasure.
Yet, Nietzsche is opposed >>23548844 voluptuousness as well.

>>submission to ones dreams and desires
Once again, a double-edged sword

"To me the convalescent would it now be suffering and torment to believe in such phantoms: suffering would it now be to me, and humiliation. Thus speak I to backworldsmen.
Suffering was it, and impotence—that created all backworlds; and the short madness of happiness, which only the greatest sufferer experienceth."

>>23549052
The fundamental question is power. If you start moralizing that power is evil because you can't do what you want because you don't have it and the people that do get to do what you wish you could, that is going to warp you and anything you touch, creating a bad conscience. Like when Christians gloat that their enemies are going to suffer eternally, or assert that it is better to be powerless than powerful, these are all the opinions of someone hostile to the florescence of life, because his own life is small and everything is a pain to him. Some anti-Nietzsche posters here will smugly observe that he was sickly and wrote that power was good, as if they themselves would smile at being bedridden and welcome it as a boon. It's pure dishonesty.

>>23549073
>anything you can come up with, no matter how secular or anti-Christian, could be dismissed as "well, that's actually crypto-Christianity
It is certainly an important thing to be on guard against, being a crypto-Christian in your values.
>>23549085
>How are they meek if they stand victorious over the strong?
There was no victory, the state simply gave them space to destroy because it was staffed by sympathizers or people too timid to actually deal with the problem. It's no different than the "Romans" converting to Christianity—an Italy ruled by provincials adopting a provincial religion, not a big surprise. Just so, people who fundamentally believe in equality as a value cannot reasonably be expected to treat resentful criminals as sub-human anti-social outlaws and cull them.

>>23545663
societal decline? the 1600 Christian Europe is perhaps the pinnacle of society, which has only much much later, after decades of anti-Christian sentiment, started to decline
do you forget that during the 90's and 00's anti-Christianity was widely accepted, was cool, and pushed everywhere, whilst at the same time, shoring up protectionism for Islam and Judaism also proliferated? Can you not look back and see, from the 60's, and then into the 70's, 80's, how Christian society was frequently attacked?
No, probably not, because you are a disingenuous meme obsessed idiot who is peddling unoriginal thought, still attached to childish edgy personality tropes
>gigantic civilization-destroying issue
you are either utterly stupid of purposely misinterpreting the scripture
blessed are those who are humble before God because they will not destroy the world unlike those who worship their own pride
blessed are those who are imbued with faith and the holy spirit instead of arguing points as means of justifying their own destructive habits and lifestyle choices
and yes
blessed are those who do not have much because you do not need much to experience and appreciate the glory of God
but no, you imply Christianity is the 'cultural Marxism' that you are so terrified of, even though such 'cultural Marxism' (a false retarded concept btw) is decadent and degenerate and seeks to humiliate the spirit into pettiness, whereas Christianity seeks to liberate the spirit to greatness

>>23549135
>Christianity seeks to liberate the spirit to greatness
not very humble or poor of you, consider making up your mind

>>23549135
>blessed are those who are humble before God because they will not destroy the world unlike those who worship their own pride
"When the emphasis of life is put on the 'beyond' rather than on life itself when it is put *on nothingness* -, then the emphasis has been completely removed from life. The enormous lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, everything natural in the instincts, - everything beneficial and life-enhancing in the instincts, everything that guarantees the future, now arouses mistrust. To live *in this way*, so that there is no *point* to life any more, *this* now becomes the 'meaning' of life ... What is the point of public spirit, of being grateful for your lineage or for your ancestors, what is the point of working together, of confidence, of working towards any sort of common goal or even keeping one in mind? ... These are all so many 'temptations', so many diversions from the 'proper path' - '*one thing* is necessary' ... That as immortal souls, everyone is on the same level as everyone else, that in the commonality of all beings, the 'salvation' of *each* individual lays claim to an eternal significance, that the small-minded and the half-mad can think well of themselves, that the laws of nature are constantly *broke*n for their sake - you cannot heap enough contempt on this, every type of selfishness increasing *shamelessly* to the point of infinity. And yet Christianity owes its *victory* to *this* miserable flattery of personal vanity, - it is precisely the failures, the rebellion-prone, the badly developed, all the rejects and dejects of humanity, that Christianity has won over by these means. 'Salvation of the soul' - in plain language: 'the world revolves around *me*' ... "

>blessed are those who are imbued with faith and the holy spirit instead of arguing points as means of justifying their own destructive habits and lifestyle choices
"The fact that the stronger races of northern Europe failed to reject the Christian God does not say very much for their skill in religion, not to mention their taste. They really *should* have been able to cope with this sort of diseased and decrepit monster of decadence. But they were damned for their failure: they brought sickness, age, and contradiction into all of their instincts, - they have not *created* any more gods since then. Almost two thousand years and not one new god! And all the while, this pathetic God of Christian mono- to no-theism instead, acting as if it had any right to exist, like an *ultimatum* and *maximum* of god-creating energy, of the human *creator spiritus*! this hybrid creature of ruin, made from nullity, concept, and contradiction, who sanctions all the instincts of decadence, all the coward ices and exhaustions of the soul! "

>>23549135
>the 1600 Christian Europe
Translation: for a period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, the Christian Europe was a shit-hole.
Q.E.D.

>the 1600 Christian Europe is perhaps the pinnacle of society,
Ah, yes. The time when they switched to deism

File: Raising_a_flag_over_the_R(...).jpg (356 KB, 1200x866)

356 KB JPG

>>23549123
>There was no victory

This what I meant about German idealism not having any connection to reality. They can witness this event and act like its something other then a complete and total defeat.

Anybody who takes Evola or Nietzche seriously is permanently braindead by atheism...
nietzche was a nihilist atheist so he tried to turn ''nihilism'' into ''optimistic nihilism'' by doing 2 things
-first by being a deceitful bitch, like any atheist, by redefining nihilism to mean ''christianity''
nihilism according to women, atheists and NPCs like nietzche mean ''thinking long term''. So according to them, when christians think what will happen after death and focus on that, that's ''nihilism''. According to atheists, ''non-nihilism'' is ''living in the present moment like Dionysus''
-second, by saying that since there is no truth and only subjective values, people should fight for their personal values. So for instance, trannies, BLM, feminists are the ubermen according to nietzche because
--they fight for their own values
--they are subversive of the ''old values'', ie the values of the british judean dutch french bourgeois merchant rats who started liberalism 300 years ago, in order to kill kings and priests and make the bureaucrats and merchants the ruling caste in their ''nationalist democratic republics''

there that's all there is nietzche . Optimistic nihilism is retarded and a huge cope by atheists to justify hedonism lol. But bitches like nietzche dont call hedonism ''hedonism'', they call it 'vitalism''.
nietzche is an hedonism, like any atheist, but atheists are desperate to earn atheist karma points, after saying objective morality and truth doesnt exist lol, and they embark on a self-made self-aggrandizing narratives wherein they are cooming like Dionysus and at the same time ''fighting for values''.
The other cope by atheists is ''traditionalism'', ie ''everyday I want a bureaucratic daddy to tell me what do to in his fascist republic while I am pretending to be wicca witch doing magic in my sparetime like Evola''.

>>23549320
>They can witness this event and act like its something other then a complete and total defeat.
I don't care about the nazis losing ww2, it wasn't what we were talking about and there's no obligation to defend them on my part in order for Nietzsche to be "right" about ressentiment, slave morality etc.

>>23548766
the nietschean turd is powerful i see

>>23549349
stale pasta
thinking you will personally live forever after you die is not thinking long-term, it's being retarded

>>23548844
It's funny how atheist embrace hedonism and want the moral authorization for it, they even think hat cooming like Dionysus is epic and the highest life kek

It's so funny how atheists are outbred by higher cultures. Nietzsche is so garbage he made himself and his atheist sheep think they were the peak

>>23549349

based. The Nietzschean world view is extremely and is incapable of recognizing true greatness and heroism.

In WWI, Nietzschean Germans laughed at the British forces as "a army of shop keepers". To them, the idea of a man meekly running clock shop responding to his countries call to fight to the death in the Somme (against all the terrors mechanized warfare had to offer) and then, when all done, going back to his store was literally laughable.

>>23549349
>nihilism according to women, atheists and NPCs like nietzche mean ''thinking long term''


This also why they hate "bourgeoisie bean counters". They hate the idea of planning, management, and responsibility that comes with economic life.

>>23549400
Being cannon fodder has no heroic qualities.

English incursions into the European continent were incessantly disastrous. Napoleon, WW1, WW2. Can someone historically informed explain how allying with the dominant continental power was intolerable for British foreign policy makers.

>>23550559
>Being cannon fodder has no heroic qualities.
The irony of someone saying this while trying to support NEETzsche is palpable

File: Nietzsche-Decadence-1888.png (206 KB, 700x480)

206 KB PNG

>>23548025
Referring to Plato as a pagan is a stretch. He was essentially nothing like a Greek, but more like a Jew or an Egyptian, and Christianity is part Plato, part Judaism — Judaism not being pagan either.

>>23548049
>This is funny because Nietzsche is one of the people responsible for the growth of feminism in the West.
This makes zero fucking sense considering Nietzsche was already critical of the proto-feminists of his day like George Sand and Madame de Stael for trying to turn women into men and carried with him a "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" attitude all throughout his writing.

>>23548719
See pic related. Fighting degeneracy is futile; an immunological defense eventually fails. The more powerful, more successful strategy is to become invisible to the degenerates.

>>23550559
>English incursions into the European continent were incessantly disastrous.
>Napoleon, WW1
>literally 100 years of stability, peace, economic growth, technological innovation, and artistic triumphs.

lol.

>>23549377
>It's so funny how atheists are outbred by higher cultures.
Kek but they're the heckin based ones, remember.

>>23545706
You know nothing about eastern europeans if you think overthrowing communism had anything to do with Christianity lmao
In many of the Warsaw Pact the church was integrated into the state apparatus, minus protestants

>>23545614
>who wrote verses praising Satan.
Come on man, that's the reason you hate him? Not his devaluing of human consciousness? If the biblr is anything to go by then God and Satan are apparently shooting the shit every now and then, making bets and taking wagers.

File: christnigger bingo .jpg (453 KB, 1080x1431)

453 KB JPG

>>23546075
Ok how many did our beloved christranny scratch off so far?

>>23552020
That’s not the teason I don’t like Marxism, but it’s proof he wasn’t Christian

>>23549227
Nietzschetranny is so historically illiterate he mixes up the 1600s and 1700s
Do you know when the 30 Years War, and the English Civil War were fought?

>>23550668
Whether or not he was sexist doesn't prevent other ideologies from taking something from his philosophy

>>23545682
Historical effects like converting browns in Rome to Christianity and having them annihilate the white Roman upper classes and forcefully convert all of Europe to their desert tranny religion you mean?

File: top.png (249 KB, 358x358)

249 KB PNG

>>23554404

>>23553973
Feminism was already well under way before he started writing and it ultimately didn't take anything from his philosophy since his philosophy (perspectives are not equal) is incompatible with it. Nice try though.

>>23545620
Faith is faith. It ultimately does not matter if it is a secular or a religious faith.

>>23545614
Christianity is self-contradictory idealist garbage, you can justify anything with scripture and that's precisely why it has historically been so successful. Absolutely nothing you've meme-arrowed was wrong per se

>>23550668
>This makes zero fucking sense considering Nietzsche was already critical of the proto-feminists of his day
"On 10 July 1874, the committee of the combined faculties of the University of Basle met in order to decide the question of admitting women to the university. The meeting was occasioned by the application of a Fräulein Rubinstein from Leipzig to enrol as a doctoral student in the classics department. Though the matter would normally have been decided by the humanities (‘philosophical’) faculty alone, it was felt that this was an issue of such moment that only the university as a whole could decide it. After a two-hour discussion the committee voted six to four against admission. The meeting must have been a heated one since the dissenting four demanded that their dissent be explicitly recorded (Janz 1978: vol. I, pp. 624–5).
In spite of his hero, the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, being on the other side, one of the dissenters was the then Dean of Humanities Friedrich Nietzsche. This suggests that Nietzsche’s long-established reputation as one of philosophy’s most virulent anti-feminists and misogynists—as the ‘philosopher of the whip’—merits at least a second look. "

>>23555080
>it ultimately didn't take anything from his philosophy since his philosophy (perspectives are not equal) is incompatible with it
>(perspectives are not equal) is incompatible with it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Longino#Philosophical_work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_empiricism

>>23550668
>Nietzsche was already critical of the proto-feminists
If we compare Zarathustra's chapter on women, it mostly just re-tells with different words the same topics that he had already said in chapters on warriors, friends, self-surpassing, etc.


1. "Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution —it is called pregnancy.
Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man?
<...>
Let the beam of a star shine in your love! Let your hope say: “May I bear the Superman!” "

Yet, creation of someone better than you, is also a purpose for a man. Humans are something to be overcome.

Prologue:
"I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going."

Chapter on marriage:
"I would have thy victory and freedom long for a child. Living monuments shalt thou build to thy victory and emancipation.
Beyond thyself shalt thou build. But first of all must thou be built thyself, rectangular in body and soul."

Chapter on involuntary bliss:
"Companions did the creating one once seek, and children of his hope: and lo, it turned out that he could not find them, except he himself should first create them."


2. "Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly."
This is a reference to Plutarch, chapter on Lycurgus (14:4) - "When some foreign woman, as it would seem, said to her: "You Spartan women are the only ones who rule their men," she answered: "Yes, we are the only ones that give birth to men." " .

Spartan women are unrestrained, excercise in sports, are supposedly promiscuous and own economic property. (14:1-2)
"as Aristotle says, he tried to bring the women under proper restraint, but desisted, because he could not overcome the great licence and power which the women enjoyed on account of the many expeditions in which their husbands were engaged. During these the men were indeed obliged to leave their wives in sole control at home, and for this reason paid them greater deference than was their due, and gave them the title of Mistress."

>>23555672
>>23550668
continuation

3. "In your love be your honour! Little doth woman understand otherwise about honour. But let this be your honour: always to love more than ye are loved, and never be the second."

Yet, he tells Warriors a similar thing: never be a second. And in the chapter on Friends, turns out is a form of love

"Ye shall be those whose eyes ever seek for an enemy— for tour enemy. And with some of you there is hatred at first sight.
Your enemy shall ye seek; your war shall ye wage, and for the sake of your thoughts! And if your thoughts succumb, your uprightness shall still shout triumph thereby!"

" “Be at least mine enemy!”—thus speaketh the true reverence, which doth not venture to solicit friendship. If one would have a friend, then must one also be willing to wage war for him: and in order to wage war, one must be capable of being an enemy.
One ought still to honour the enemy in one’s friend. Canst thou go nigh unto thy friend, and not go over to him?
In one’s friend one shall have one’s best enemy. Thou shalt be closest unto him with thy heart when thou withstandest him."

And yes, you'll have to love more, than you are loved:

"Thou wouldst wear no raiment before thy friend? It is in honour of thy friend that thou showest thyself to him as thou art? But he wisheth thee to the devil on that account!
He who maketh no secret of himself shocketh: so much reason have ye to fear nakedness! Aye, if ye were Gods, ye could then be ashamed of clothing!
Thou canst not adorn thyself fine enough for thy friend; for thou shalt be unto him an arrow and a longing for the Superman."


4. "In your love let there be valour! With your love shall ye assail him who inspireth you with fear!
<...>
Let man fear woman when she loveth: then maketh she every sacrifice, and everything else she regardeth as worthless."

Literally, every power-craving self-controlling individual does that:
"And as the lesser surrendereth himself to the greater that he may have delight and power over the least of all, so doth even the greatest surrender himself, and staketh— life, for the sake of power.
It is the surrender of the greatest to run risk and danger, and play dice for death. And where there is sacrifice and service and love-glances,
there also is the will to be master. By by-ways doth the weaker then slink into the fortress, and into the heart of the mightier one—and there stealeth power"

>>23555674
>>23555672
>>23550668
continuation, the last one.

5. "Whom hateth woman most?—Thus spake the iron to the loadstone: “I hate thee most, because thou attractest, but art too weak to draw unto thee.”"

See (3) - " “Be at least mine enemy!”... "


6. "The happiness of man is, “I will.” The happiness of woman is, “He will.” "

Yet, warriors also don't actually operate on "I will":
"To the good warrior soundeth “thou shalt” pleasanter than “I will.” And all that is dear unto you, ye shall first have it commanded unto you."

'Thou shalt' == 'He wills'


7. “Lo! now hath the world become perfect!”—thus thinketh every woman when she obeyeth with all her love.

Yet, everyone obeys:
"But wherever I found living things, there heard I also the language of obedience. All living things are obeying things.
And this heard I secondly: Whatever cannot obey itself, is commanded. Such is the nature of living things."


8. "Then answered me the old woman: “Many fine things hath Zarathustra said, especially for those who are young enough for them.
Strange! Zarathustra knoweth little about woman, and yet he is right about them! Doth this happen, because with women nothing is impossible?"

Nuff said

>>23545677
The realities of how Christianity has been "practiced" that you think you can use as a counterargument such as "what about muh BASED CRUSADES" are always a concession by Christianity to the secular powers of it's time.

File: julian-emperor-quote-lbq2d3r.jpg (57 KB, 1200x630)

57 KB JPG

>>23545754
>but we hate each other!
Christians have always hated other sects of Christianity far more than anybody else.

>>23555550
>>23555585
You confuse Nietzsche's perspectivism with feminism. Feminism is the view that men and women are equal; Nietzsche doesn't share this view about perspectives. In his philosophy, the woman has her own perspective independent of the man's, and he encourages the development of the woman's perspective, because this in turn will develop the man's further. Development does not mean "become similar" — the more similar the other's perspective, the less it can contribute to the self's.

Additionally, it's the body that Nietzsche considered to be the authentic self. Not your wardrobe, not your bank account. He was in favor of destroying political and economic inequality between men and women because these cause obstructions for the development of the (bodily) self. In modern, highly democratic societies, men and women are in fact becoming less similar, not more — they vote differently, occupy very different jobs, live differently, etc. Upon the destruction of these artificial barriers, the natural values and desires of men and women that set them apart from each other come to the forefront, and this is perfectly in alignment with Nietzsche's philosophy and why he advocated for democracy at times in his work.

>>23556308
>Feminism is the view that men and women are equal
No, it's not. It already existed in the Enlightenment, and feminism has so many waves that "men and women are equal" doesn't work for the definition of feminism as a whole, not least because you have pro-women laws that don't apply to men.
The best definition of feminism is that it's nihilism for women, or also: the greatest amount of resources with the least possible effort. This thing about women being able to do whatever they want, that women don't have a natural vocation, that being a mother is bad comes from nihilism, and much of the support for this comes from Nietzsche, as I've already said. I'll repeat it again, because you're dumb enough to exclude a whole causal relationship because "muh, Nietzsche criticized women and proto-feminism, so the feminist movement can't be inspired by Nietzsche dur", explain to me, WHERE does the argument that women shouldn't have children come from, because having children is a sacrifice for a woman and it will prevent her from having a career or finding meaning in life, if not from will to power, explain to me where all this criticism of motherhood comes from if not from an interpretation of the feminine side of the Letzter Mensch

>>23555759
>The Kshatriya from all over Europe, from the most diverse cultures, accepting a mission given by the Brahmin, without a promise of material reward, having to spend a very large amount of money, soldiers, aristocrats and mercenaries, is a concession from Christianity to secular power
IDIOT. The crusades are one of the greatest possible examples of traditional principles

>>23557120
>Conflating Christianity as taught by Christ with the perennial tradition
Really? Have you actually read Evola? Or Guenon for that matter?

>>23557137
You saw 'Brahmin' and 'Kshatriya' in the sentence and thought I was mixing Catholicism with Hinduism, and you still ask me if I've read Guénon when you are not capable of making a basic interpretation that anyone who has read Guénon would understand, lol, lmao
Look, you are probably Anglo, your Christianity is precisely the inversion of Christianity being ordered by secular power, and you want to discuss this?

>>23557162
>You saw 'Brahmin' and 'Kshatriya' in the sentence and thought I was mixing Catholicism with Hinduism
I literally used the term "perrenial tradition" by name you stupid fucktard.
>Look, you are probably Anglo,
Brown hands typed this post.

>>23557173
Explain to me, HOW "perennial tradition" would apply to anything I said

>>23557173
You've read Guénon, and probably you've accepted EVERYTHING he said, including when he says that Catholicism is part of the perennial tradition even because it's a traditional religion. That doesn't mean Catholicism believes in perennialism or that it believes it's part of the perennial tradition, or that, by having read Guénon and accepting some of his points, you necessarily need to be a perennialist (even because a Pope recommended Guénon on symbolism). Especially because the Church teaches "no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" (not to be confused with non-Catholics cannot be saved).
That's the problem with people you mention something about alchemy, symbolism, traditionalism, and they think you have to accept everything they say as truth. It doesn't work like that

>>23557242
you sound like an incoherent nutcase who is really desperate for my attention

File: you're out.jpg (124 KB, 750x1000)

124 KB JPG

>>23557249
Okay, you have nothing to say, this is the third comment that doesn't point out perennialism in my comment about the Crusades. I'm just going to ignore you from now on

>>23557053
>This thing about women being able to do whatever they want, that women don't have a natural vocation, that being a mother is bad comes from nihilism
Radfem =/= feminism

Feminists don't think motherhood is bad, and they think women can and should be able to do what they want because they don't believe men or anyone else has any authority to tell them otherwise, not because they believe nothing has value (=nihilism). Feminism is essentially the view that men and women hold or can hold an equal share in authority and autonomy and any other definition is some radical offshoot or straw man. This view is not Nietzschean, and Nietzsche would look at modern democratic societies which show statistics demonstrating that men and women are becoming increasingly different and say "I told you so" — although he would also look at the patriarchal tyrant who wants women to be like pets and say "you're a weak man."

But let's examine your accusation that the nihilism behind radfem is Nietzschean, which is also wrong. This nihilism was also something that existed prior to Nietzsche and which he was already critical of. It stems from Christianity, which separated the soul from the body and therefore made life abhorrent and truth denarrativized (stemming from Plato). For Nietzsche, consciousness is surface-level, and the body possesses its own values and meanings unconsciously; a perspective is constructed from this body containing a multiplicity of drives; there is therefore nothing nihilistic about Nietzsche's philosophy.

Here is the full passage about there being no facts, which is always quoted in error:

>Against empiricism, which halts at observable phenomena—"There are only facts"—I would say, no, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact "in itself": perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing. "Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject" is not something given, it is something added and invented. Is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Insofar as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is interpretable, otherwise it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings—"Perspectivism." It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their "for" and "against." Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

Ergo, Nietzsche's perspectives do come from somewhere; we're not free to just invent them as we please. But they are largely unconscious and unknown to us.

>>23557053
>>23557337
>explain to me, WHERE does the argument that women shouldn't have children come from, because having children is a sacrifice for a woman and it will prevent her from having a career or finding meaning in life, if not from will to power
Also, it comes from Christianity, specifically Calvinism. Capitalism is the continuation of the Calvinist masochistic drive to work towards salvation. Those women who look at childbearing as bad because it interferes with their careers are just capitalists, i.e., neo-Calvinists; they have nothing to do with Nietzsche.

>>23545614
>founded by a Jewish man who wrote verses praising Satan.
wtf I love Marx now?

File: file3.jpg (69 KB, 450x432)

69 KB JPG

>>23557337
>>23557344
You made a huge mess. First, you start by saying that women do not hate motherhood, then you say that the idea that women shouldn't have children comes from capitalism (wait, isn't it wrong that feminism hate motherhood?), which comes from Puritanism, which comes from Calvinism, which comes from protestantism, and doesn't stick to a definition of Christianity. You need to pick a dubious sect of Protestantism that doesn't believe in free will, and take a confusing definition of capitalism to mix everything up, and attributing a causal relationship that you leave unexplained (North Korea and China also have a declining number of children per woman and Cuba has had this problem since 1970s).
"Feminism is the view that men and women hold or can hold an equal share in authority and autonomy, and any other definition is some radical offshoot or straw man". You already changed the definition. In your previous comment, you say that feminism is the idea that men and women are equal, it was a radical offshoot or straw man? In this one you already change and go for a more "academic" (IYI) and broad path, which can mean many things. You had the capacity to not use the same definition in the matter of TWO COMMENTS. I will use your definition "the idea that men and women are equal in rights".
The discourse of feminism being a fight for equal rights between men and women is nonsense because, to begin with, the right to vote was given to men in exchange for the possibility of being drafted for war, in exchange for being willing to die for their country, so, right from the first wave, there is no such thing as men being equal to women in rights, the ideal feminism died right away.
"Ah, but it was a trade-off, feminists like Bertha Lutz asked for the right to go to war". YES, the RIGHT to go to war, women can go voluntarily while men are forced to go to war, it’s an absurd difference. There is an episode in the Odyssey, where they are returning from a victory, and the young Telemachus is talking to other men, and a woman appears to ask to speak, and he says "go back to your place woman" precisely because it is mainly men who suffer the consequences if society goes down, so, men have authority over politics.
"Radfem =/= feminism" is funny because every new wave of feminism will be considered "radfem" in relation to the old one. I would also say that radfems have much more in common with a first or second-wave feminist than a current feminist, as I highly doubt a first wave feminist would believe in trans women bullshit.

File: modern feminism.jpg (251 KB, 665x456)

251 KB JPG

>>23557337
>>23557344
To say that feminism is not a fight against men, or that it does not fight against motherhood, it takes a tremendous effort to do so. You really need to blind yourself to believe such nonsense, to be completely out of touch with what is being discussed in public debate, journalism, politics, the feminist movement, and academia. South Korean feminists literally say not to have children and not to have sex, you can't get clearer than that. The current discourse is that "women don't need to be kind", which has already been put into practice for years, but they are pushing it even further. Manon Garcia was exalted and offered a professorship at the best universities for her thesis "on ne naît pas soumise, on le devient," which translates to "one is not born submissive, which attempts to break the idea that women should be kind... nihilism.
Furthermore, one of the biggest studies published recently was that men's and women's brains are not the same, and it was a study done and published BY A FEMINIST (Lisa Mosconi), and she also uses FEMINIST ARGUMENTS in her discourse. That is to say, this nonsense that feminism is about believing that men and women are equal is as ridiculous as believing that communism is the (or will come after the) revolution of the proletariat and bla bla bla

File: Manliness.jpg (897 KB, 1192x836)

897 KB JPG

>>23558913
>>23558921
>And they think women can and should be able to do what they want
this is literally nihilism. Replace "a woman can do what she wants" with "a man can do what he wants" and that will be nihilism. You can change the type of nihilism it is, the interpretation, but it will still be nihilism. "Nietzsche is not a nihilist" is a half-truth. Nietzsche is a nihilist because he denies that there is an immanent meaning in life; this is also nihilism. What he denies is modern nihilism, which denies an immanent meaning in life and instead of seeking the will to power, it seeks illusory comforts that generally try to delegate the meaning of life to the meaning of history and people end up sacrificing themselves instead of others.
And calling Christianity nihilistic is ridiculous, especially because Nietzsche was a voluntarist (which is a metaphysical system no matter how much he tries to deny it), that "comes" from Christianity, so "Christianity" by your own interpretation, would be A and ¬A at the same time

>>23545663
>If you can't see the gigantic civilization-destroying issue with this kind of idealization of humanity, then you're ngmi.
If you can't see the inherent truth of a statement on the transient nature of temporal might and glory, you may be an indignant social climber in a declining imperial civilization

>>23549073
This is actually true, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is that upstarts don't actually believe you or give a shit when you call them out, no matter how righteous their cause. This is how you get an entire demographic of mindbroken neopagans listening to "viking" music full of shamanistic throat singing, which is actually literally a foreign import

>>23558913
>North Korea and China also have a declining number of children per woman and Cuba has had this problem since 1970s
All of these countries are participating in the globalist capitalist economy whether they want to or not. Calvinism's work towards salvation principle evolved into capitalism, which is inherently globalist. Women who hate motherhood do so because they're capitalist, not because they're feminist, although capitalism and feminism did arise together because they complement one another (and neither of them are Nietzschean).

> In this one you already change and go for a more "academic" (IYI) and broad path, which can mean many things.
You know what it means, and I didn't change it, I just elaborated on it.

>The discourse of feminism being a fight for equal rights between men and women is nonsense because [...]
I don't care, I'm not a feminist or a capitalist. You don't need to explain this shit to me.

>>23558921
>To say that feminism is not a fight against men, or that it does not fight against motherhood, it takes a tremendous effort to do so
Feminism is a fight against men, but the fight against motherhood is capitalist. These are two separate ideologies currently deconstructing and redistributing power in society, and both of them work in tandem, and neither of them are Nietzschean. While Nietzsche was a deconstructionist, he was in favor of increasing gulfs and re-establishing a class-based society, not reducing and eliminating them, because he was not a hedonistic narcissist like retards commonly portray him as.

>>23559683
>These are two separate ideologies
Feminism is bourgeois as hell. Read Proudhon.

>>23559476
Yeah, I wasn't saying it's necessarily a bad thing. Just that dismissing any idea because it's a "counter" is a stupid axiom to have. And I was also pointing out that as much as that other anon wants to cope, the egalitarianism we know of today (man = woman, for example) can be literally traced back to paganism, which makes his whole point invalid, anyways

>>23559694
And that's an excuse for lazy, imprecise thinking in your mind?

>>23559705
Find me a feminist movement before 1789.

>>23559713
Why?

>>23559725
To prove that feminism and capitalism are two seperate ideologies. Feminism exists only because of capitalism.

>>23559741
>Feminism exists only because of capitalism.
I'm not denying that, but they have different imperatives and contexts regardless. It's lazy thinking to assume they're completely identical.