>>25386711
>if he was consistent to his beliefs
"To stand with relaxed muscles and with unharnessed will: that is the hardest for all of you, ye sublime ones!
When power becometh gracious and descendeth into the visible—I call such condescension, beauty.
And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!"

>>25386713
/thread

>>25386713
Couldn't this just be like Epstein donating money to charity when he's feeling gracious (although I understand they do it in part to avoid taxation)? It's not like Nietzsche was in favor of moral purity, it's more like when you become so powerful your soul is full of different impulses and goodness can become one of them. In that sense it resembles the as above so below principle from freemasonry, rather than actual righteousness. He was in favor of cruelty in most of his writings, and viewed it as an expression of power.

>>25386726
>Couldn't this just be like Epstein donating money to charity
"Where is beauty? Where I must will with my whole Will; where I will love and perish, that an image may not remain merely an image.
Loving and perishing: these have rhymed from eternity. Will to love: that is to be ready also for death. Thus do I speak unto you cowards!"

>It's not like Nietzsche was in favor of moral purity,
It's more like Nietzsche is not in favor random wantonness, if it doesn't serve a higher goal.

"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!"


>He was in favor of cruelty in most of his writings
Only if it's a display of equality and respect, not a free pass to do whatever you want.

"Arousing Pity.—Among savages men think with a moral shudder of the possibility of becoming an object of pity, for such a state they regard as deprived of all virtue. Pitying is equivalent to despising: they do not want to see a contemptible being suffer, for this would afford them no enjoyment. On the other hand, to behold one of their enemies suffering, some one whom they look upon as their equal in pride, but whom torture cannot induce to give up his pride, and in general to see some one suffer who refuses to lower himself by appealing for pity—which would in their eyes be the most profound and shameful humiliation—this is the very joy of joys. Such a spectacle excites the deepest admiration in the soul of the savage, and he ends by killing such a brave man when it is in his power, afterwards according funeral honours to the unbending one. If he had groaned, however; if his countenance had lost its expression of calm disdain; if he had shown himself to be contemptible,—well, in such a case he might have been allowed to live like a dog: he would no longer have aroused the pride of the spectator, and pity would have taken the place of admiration."


And even cruelty of ressentiment-type can take sublime enough forms, so as not to alert and rattle the herd:
"Behold such a man, now become humble, and perfect in his humility—and seek those for whom, through his humility, he has for a long time been preparing a torture; for you are sure to find them! Here is another man who shows mercy towards animals, and is admired for doing so—but there are certain people on whom he wishes to vent his cruelty by this very means."

>>25386747
Senk you.

>>25386711
The question is which elites. Read Klossowski's Cercle vicieux.

>"You need to hecking transvalue all values! No limits!"
>"Noooooo! Not like that! That's hecking bad and anti-Semitic."

>>25386747
>There they enjoy freedom from all social constraint; in the wilderness they make up for the tension brought about by long periods of confinement and enclosure within the peace of the community; they step back into the innocence of the predator conscience as jubilant monsters who perhaps walk away from a horrific string of murder, arson, rape and torture in high spirits, with equanimity of the soul, as if they had merely pulled some student prank, convinced that the poets once again have something to sing and praise for a long time to come. What constitutes the ground of all these noble races is the predator, the magnificent blond beast40 roaming about lustily after prey and victory; a discharging of this hidden ground is needed from time to time; the animal must emerge once more, must return to the wilderness:—Roman, Arabic, Teutonic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings—they are all the same in this need.
In this context the “wilderness” is Epstein’s island and Epstein is the blond beast who needs to release the tension brought about by living within the restraints of society.

>>25387417
>>freedom from all social constraint
The blond beasts of old, aka the dumb retards with zero self-reflexivity, whose ultimate achievement is that they have infected their slaves with bad conscience and IQ:

"The man who can command, who is by nature a “master,” who comes forward with violence in his actions and gestures—what has he to do with making contracts! We do not negotiate with such beings. <...> Their work is the instinctive creation of forms, the imposition of forms. They are the most involuntary and most unconscious artists in existence <...> These men, these born organizers, have no idea what guilt, responsibility, and consideration are. <...> *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*. 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."

This sickness is the foundation of humanity's superiority, which is also what makes the whole condundrum so tragic:
"Among the priests, everything simply becomes more dangerous—not only the remedies and arts of healing, but also pride, vengeance, mental acuity, excess, love, thirst for power, virtue, illness—although it’s fair enough also to add that on the foundation of this *fundamentally dangerous* form of human existence, the priestly, for the first time the human being became, in general, an *interesting animal*, that here the human soul first attained *depth* in a higher sense and became *evil*—and, indeed, these are the two basic reasons for humanity’s superiority, up to now, over other animals!"

"A race of such men of ressentiment will necessarily end up *cleverer* than any noble race. It will value cleverness to a completely different extent, that is, as a condition of existence of the utmost importance"

"To breed an animal that is *entitled to make promises*—is that not precisely the paradoxical task nature has set itself where human beings are concerned? Isn’t that the real problem of human beings? . . . The fact that this problem has to a great extent been solved must seem all the more astonishing to a person who knows how to appreciate fully the power which works against this promise-making, namely *forgetfulness*"
"To be entitled to pledge one’s word, and to do it with pride, and also to be permitted to say “Yes” to oneself— that is a ripe fruit, as I have mentioned, but it is also a *late* fruit <...> Indeed, there is perhaps nothing more fearful and more terrible in the entire prehistory of human beings than the technique for developing his memory. “We burn something in so that it remains in the memory. Only something which never ceases to cause pain remains in the memory” "

Well that's just a generic critique of all those who deny metaphysics. Yes, none of them should have a problem with any kind of behaviour, but all of them do anyway (certainly none moreso than Nietzsche) because they're exactly the kind of arrogant, whiny moralfags they like to portray God as. "Everyone must conform to my subjective view of ethics because I say so" is their childish cry they repeat routinely, often immediately after accusing our Lord of doing the same thing.

>>25387609
>Yes, none of them should have a problem with any kind of behaviour, but
"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. "

>"Everyone must conform to my subjective view of ethics because I say so"
Everyone must reframe any "ought" into "is", filtered by a dynamic environmental bottleneck, instead of some static sky-daddy's commandment, devoid of context.

File: 1753713254182181.jpg (150 KB, 1078x1052)

150 KB JPG

How do you know he wasn't?

>>25386713
Wtf Nietzsche was a furry

>>25388175
That's the most jewish thing I've ever read.

>>25388175
Again, this is not a free pass to do anything you want. Random shitting around is chided:

"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."


The 'evilness' is a matter of perspective, but while it might be unconventional from a mainstream viewpoint, those are the actions that a higher human would wholeheartedly embrace and defend as his genuinely 'good' ones. While conventionally 'evil', they are nonetheless constructive and have long-lasting effects:

"And verily, ye good and just! In you there is much to be laughed at, and especially your fear of what hath hitherto been called “the devil!”
So alien are ye in your souls to what is great, that to you the Superman would be frightful in his goodness!
And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman—a devil!"

"Verily, like a storm cometh my happiness, and my freedom! But mine enemies shall think that *the evil one* roareth over their heads.
Yea, ye also, my friends, will be alarmed by my wild wisdom; and perhaps ye will flee therefrom, along with mine enemies.
Ah, that I knew how to lure you back with shepherds’ flutes! Ah, that my lioness wisdom would learn to roar softly! And much have we already learned with one another!"

>>25386711
>torturing
This is what expected of an intellectually honest christian (aka a preacher of death). To make the others' lives completely unbearable, so that others would actively desire the afterlife:

" “Pity is necessary,”—so saith a third party. “Take what I have! Take what I am! So much less doth life bind me!”
Were they consistently pitiful, then would they make their neighbours sick of life. To be wicked—that would be their true goodness.
But they want to be rid of life; what care they if they bind others still faster with their chains and gifts!"


Meanwhile, what is expected of a normal ubermensch is to grow spiritually through suffering in the name of life:

"Spirit is life which itself cutteth into life: by its own torture doth it increase its own knowledge,—did ye know that before?
And the spirit’s happiness is this: to be anointed and consecrated with tears as a sacrificial victim,—did ye know that before?
And the blindness of the blind one, and his seeking and groping, shall yet testify to the power of the sun into which he hath gazed,—did ye know that before?
And with mountains shall the discerning one learn to build! It is a small thing for the spirit to remove mountains,—did ye know that before?"

Eventually martyring yourself in the name of life (basically, a kenosis):

"Verily, I divine you well, my disciples: ye strive like me for the bestowing virtue. What should ye have in common with cats and wolves?
It is your thirst to become sacrifices and gifts yourselves: and therefore have ye the thirst to accumulate all riches in your soul.
Insatiably striveth your soul for treasures and jewels, because your virtue is insatiable in desiring to bestow.
Ye constrain all things to flow towards you and into you, so that they shall flow back again out of your fountain as the gifts of your love."

And only with this mindset, it is permissible to do harm:

"But attend also to this word: All great love is above all its pity: for it seeketh—to create what is loved!
“Myself do I offer unto my love, and my neighbour as myself”—such is the language of all creators.
All creators, however, are hard."

Basically, it's a variation of Kant's categorical imperative. Do unto others what you find acceptable to be done to yourself:

"Have we not at least the right to treat our neighbour as we treat ourselves? And if, where we are concerned, we do not think in such a narrow and bourgeois fashion of immediate consequences and sufferings, why should we be compelled to act thus in regard to our neighbour? Supposing that we felt ready to sacrifice ourselves, what is there to prevent us from sacrificing our neighbour together with ourselves,—just as States and Sovereigns have hitherto sacrificed one citizen to the others, “for the sake of the general interest,” as they say?"

File: Tommaso.Laureti.Triumph.o(...).jpg (412 KB, 901x776)

412 KB JPG

>>25388615
>wah wah Christians are so bad
I thought you liked power.

VAE VICTIS

>>25388615
>Supposing that we felt ready to sacrifice ourselves, what is there to prevent us from sacrificing our neighbour together with ourselves
that's exactly what the Nazis thought and did but NEETchuds are gonna say
>nooo he was nothing like the Nazis brooo

handing out the 'never read Nietzsche' award to OP

I dismiss everything this guy says because of his obnoxious reddit moustache

>>25389680
This level of Christcuck ressentiment is proving Nietzsche right btw

>>25389680
>>wah wah Christians are so bad
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Christians are inconstent. It *would* have an intellectually consistent and hence respectable position, if a Christian *had* indeed been "so bad" so as to poison others' lives, moron.
This particular way (to defend something atrocious as your 'good') is exactly how you *can* wholeheartedly pull shit like torture and rape. You just have to be insane enough to legitimately crave apocalyptism.


The problem with Christians is exactly that they are *not* "so bad". They are mediocre, hypocritical and unimpressive. The kind that one despises, but not hates.

"Ye shall only have enemies to be hated, but not enemies to be despised. Ye must be proud of your enemies; then, the successes of your enemies are also your successes."

"Would that there came preachers of *speedy* death! Those would be the appropriate storms and agitators of the trees of life! But I hear only slow death preached, and patience with all that is “earthly.”
Ah! ye preach patience with what is earthly? This earthly is it that hath too much patience with you, ye blasphemers!"


Holding an abominable ideology per se, is not a problem by the way, when one is locked in confrontation with someone else. Environmental filter will sort people out. Nietzsch gives an example with liberalism:
"Liberal institutions stop being liberal as soon as they have been attained: after that, nothing damages freedom more terribly or more thoroughly than liberal institutions.<...> Liberalism: *herd animalization*, in other words ... As long as they are still being fought for, these same institutions have entirely different effects and are actually powerful promoters of freedom. On closer inspection, it is the war that produces these effects, the war *for* liberal institutions which, being a war, keeps *illiberal* institutions in place. And the war is what teaches people to be free. Because, what is freedom anyway? Having the will to be responsible for yourself. Maintaining the distance that divides us. Becoming indifferent to hardship, cruelty, deprivation, even to life. Being ready to sacrifice people for your cause, yourself included. Freedom means that the manly instincts which take pleasure in war and victory have gained control over the other instincts, over the instinct of 'happiness', for instance. People who have *become free* (not to mention spirits who have become free) wipe their shoes on the miserable type of well-being that grocers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats dream about. A free human being is a warrior. - How is freedom measured in individuals and in peoples? It is measured by the resistance that needs to be overcome, by the effort that it costs to stay on *top*. Look for the highest type of free human beings where the highest resistance is constantly being overcome: five paces away from tyranny, right on the threshold, where servitude is a danger."

>>25386747
>>25386713
Inconsistent self-refuting schizophrenia. Read a real book and not some druggie faggot's slop.