Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 7th, 2010 #1
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default Nietzsche on...

Below are some excerpts on, and quotes by, Nietzsche from several books I own dealing with his life and philosophy. Two, Curtis Cate's Friedrich Nietzsche and Rudiger Safranski's Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, I've finished reading, and the third, Karl Jaspers' 1936 classic Nietzsche: An Introduction to his Philosophical Activity, I've just cracked. Some self-proclaimed Nietzschean "experts", most notably Holocaust fabulists, attempt to convey the false notion that the policy-makers and ideologues of National Socialist doctrine in 1930s Germany misappropriated Nietzsche's views on war and peace, the natural aristocracy of man, the ideal state, ethics and personal responsibility, etc. in order to suit their evil purposes and claim him as one of their own. They charge the Germans with being deceptively selective in choosing parts of his philosophy that best fit their intents while jettisoning those that contradicted NS thought. For the most part, I disagree; but then again wtf do I know and, as a German satirist once said, "Tell me what you need and I'll find the right Nietzsche quote for you." Nietzsche had something for everyone, regardless of political stripe, but on some issues there was no controversy, no argument, as to where he stood.

I'll start out with something easy; for instance, Nietzsche's views on criminal culpability (from the Cate's book, p. 291):

In a remarkable section, no. 28, "What is arbitrary in the meting out of Justice" (from his book The Wanderer and His Shadow), Nietzsche in effect anticipated the abuses that were bound to arise from an overly sentimental view of human guilt and responsibility, according to which it is the criminal who is punished for his wrongdoing rather than the act itself. If, Nietzsche pointed out, the criminal's past was taken into consideration, then it could be argued that it was not simply the criminal who was guilty, but his parents, his teachers, even society itself. Nothing was more pernicious than this supposedly "fair" attempt to incorporate the past in the judicial process. For "if one is not prepared to admit the absolute exoneration of every guilt, one should stop at the individual case and not look back beyond it...Therefore, you Free-willers, draw the necessary conclusion and boldly decree: 'No act has a past.'"

Nietzsche was unquestionably right in thus foreseeing the tangled knots into which the convenient argument of "attenuating circumstances" could tie judicial procedures in our day. But, contrary to what he intimated here, it has not been the believers in free will but the unwitting neo-determinists -- th psychiatrists, the "social scientists" the "social-welfare experts", and clever lawyers -- who have done the most to confuse and upset the contemporary judicial process by arguing in case after case that the committers of crimes cannot rightfully be considered guilty since through no fault of their own they were the helpless victims of their wretched upbringing, family neglect, a dismal social environment, as well as of psychopathic tendencies they could not control.

- end of excerpt
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old December 8th, 2010 #2
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default master- vs. slave-morality

again from Cate's book; pp.479, 481-2:

The harsh truth, Nietzsche roundly declared, from which almost everyone in an increasingly squeamish age was now recoiling, was that every enhancement and elevation of the type of "Man" had so far been the work of an aristocratic society: of a society displaying a "long ladder in the Order of Rank" based on an implicit recognition of a "pathos of distance", of significant differences between man and man, one therefore requiring a certain degree of slavery. (I should point out here that when Nietzsche speaks of slaves, or those possessing a "slave-morality", he isn't using the term(s) in the literal sense. As far as he was concerned, anyone who was forced to do work which they didn't want to perform -- waitresses, laborers, soldiers, etc. -- was a slave. - M.H.) In an absolutely egalitarian society, in which all human beings enjoy the same status, there is no inner incentive for the individual to strive to "improve himself" and to attain a higher level of "manhood", since the longed-for "goal", for the "common man", has, at any rate in theory, already been reached...

Having briefly explained how an aristocratic caste arises and then declines, Nietzsche undertook to provide both phenomena with a realistic, unsentimental rationalization -- by bluntly decaring that "Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, the overcoming of what is alien and weaker, subjugation, harshness, the forcible imposition of one's own forms, incorporation and, at the very least and mildest, exploitation -- a term which (thanks to Karl Marx and his followers) had come to acquire a stupidly "slanderous" connotation. Any truly living body -- and this was true of every healthy aristocracy -- "will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will want to grow, enlarge itself, attract, and acquire predominance -- not because of any morality or immorality, but because it is alive and because life is precisely will to power." In the course of his comparative studies of various systems of morality, Nietzsche went on, he had come to realize that, despite all sorts of variations, there have always existed two basic types that are radically distinct. The first, he robustly asserted, is a master-morality, the second a slave-morality -- although, he hastened to add, in all higher and mixed cultures attempts have been made to reconcile the two, only too often giving rise to misunderstandings, not only in society in general but within the individual. The salient characteristic of a master-morality is self-confidence and a feeling of superiority, so natural and instinctive that "good" is virtually synonymous with "noble" and bad with "contemptible." "Profound respect for age and tradition -- all law reposes on this double respect -- a prejudiced faith regarding ancestors and disregarding those to come is typical of the morality of the powerful."

Diametrically opposed to the basic traits of the "master-morality" were the characteristics of the "slave-morality." These were rooted in a general lack of confidence and a "pessimistic" suspicion of everything "superior" in human behavior. This suspicion and distrust, on the part of those who feel themselves to be abused, oppressed, and thus "unfree", is directed against everything regarded as "good" by the "master-caste", the real creator of all values. Compassion, the obliging hand, the warm heart, patience, industry, obedience, humility, are honored, for these are the most useful qualities for the suffering and oppressed.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; December 8th, 2010 at 01:57 PM.
 
Old December 10th, 2010 #3
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

If there is an afterlife with infinite possibility, then I will temporarily change my form to that of Socrates, and seek out this man.

Then, I'll approach him, and stand there, as he stops beating the shit out of Walter Kaufman(n) for shitting all over his words with his commentaries, and listen to him say to me "What? The ugliest man inside and out in all of history stands before me?"

Then I'll say "You were right! I am a Jew! The Jew of all Jews! And I was the birth of bitch in man!"

He'll say "You weren't fooling me! Tell me, did you drink that hemlock before or after the two-drachma hooker told you she wouldn't fuck you for a thousand minae?"

Then I'll change back to my original form, and say "Just fuckin' with ya man".

Then he'll say "That's not very nice"

Then I'll say "Fuck your morals, hypocrite".

Then we'll laugh and go watch Schopenhauer working in his garden saying "fucking shit either the bugs eat it or it doesn't grow fully before the frost or it's something, it's always something, damn it, damned if I do damned if I don't, shit!"
 
Old December 10th, 2010 #4
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default the state

from pp. 254-5 of Jaspers' book:

So far as its origin and its abiding reality is concerned, the state in Nietzsche's opinion is a destructive, assimilating power that enslaves the mass of humanity. Without it, on the other hand, there can be no human society and no creative individuals. "Only by the iron clamp of the state can the larger masses be so pressed together that...stratification of society, with its pyramidal structure, must result." Thus the state rests on a human necessity. Since this latter exercises an inner complusion, the state is accepted as something highly beneficial despite the force with which it intrudes into life. Not only does all history show "how little the subjects care about the atrocious origin of the state," but it also reveals the enthusiastic surrender to it "when the hearts of men, involuntarily drawn by the magic of the growing state, are filled with the sense of a profound secret purpose...when even the state is considered with ardor as the goal and summit of sacrifices and duties of the individual."

Nietzsche tries to clarify the significance and value of the state by investigating the effect of this condition of existence on the human situation. To him the state is the power that gives a characteristic stamp to the individual, the people, and the culture.

Culture exists through the state alone. Of course, the fact that culture is impossible without the "contented mass of slaves" and without the conditions that produce the state is "the vulture that gnaws at the livers of the Promethean promoters of culture"; but to wish to oppose these conditions would be to wish to oppose culture itself. Permanence in human affairs can be achieved only through the state. No culture can grow when man continually has to start anew. Consequently the "great aim of statesmanship should be permanence. This outweighs everything else, being more valuable even than liberty." The situation before him in which nothing is planned from a longe-range view is taken by Nietzsche to be a symptom of weary government: the fact that "the individual does not receive any stronger impulses to participate in the building of institutions planned to last for centuries" constitutes the ruinous difference between "our agitated ephemeral existence and the sustained serenity of metaphysical ages."

In showing us what the state has to be, Nietzsche also shows us the danger it represents. When it abandons its creative ground, it becomes the force that destroys the true being of man through a process of leveling. When this form of the state is glorified, he calls it the "new idol" and sees in it the actual enemy of all that the genuine state should make possible or bring forth: the people, culture, and man as the creating individual:

In the first place, the perverted state brings about the "death of peoples." The "most unfeeling of all monsters falsely asserts...'I, the state, am the people.'" If the life of the state is not identified with the people, then the concept of the mass prevails: "Far too many are born; the state has been invented for the superfluous ones!"

Second, the state which falls short of its purpose becomes the enemy of culture. Nietzsche contradicts his own glorification of the state which grew out of his contemplation of the state-born culture of Greece when he views the modern state as the non-creative tool of the overpowering force of the mass of the "superfluous ones": The idea of a culture-state is entirely modern...All the great ages have been ages of political decline: whatever is great in the sense of culture was non-political, even anti-political...Goethe opened his heart to the personality of Napoleon; he closed it when the Wars of Liberation came." "Culture owes its highest attainments to politically weakened times."

Third, the state is destructive of the individual. It "is a clever arrangement for the protection of individuals against one another, but if its refinement is exaggerated, the individual in the end will be weakened and even dissolved by it; meanwhile the basic purpose of the state is most thoroughly thwarted." "Whenever the state ceases, the man who is not superfluous really begins: there begins the song of the necessary one, the unique and irreplaceable melody." Therefore let us have "as little of 'state' as possible!"
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs

Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; December 11th, 2010 at 10:06 AM.
 
Old December 14th, 2010 #5
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default war and peace

from pp. 256-7 of Jaspers' book:

Nietzsche views war in its undeniable reality as the boundary -- the annihilation and, at the same time, the condition -- of human existence. War is a concern of the state as the final authority deciding the course of things; the state emerges through war and, in turn, brings it about. Without war the state would cease. War and the possibility of war revive the waning sentiment for the state. Even the youthful Nietzsche expresses the idea that "war is as much a necessity for the state as the slave (ordinary worker, that is -- MH) is for society," and late in life Nietzsche repeats: "Life is a result of war, society itself a means to war."

But Nietzsche is not an enemy of peace or a glorifier of war. His honesty does not permit him to assume an absolutely final position, as though any recognized boundary of our existence were subject to our verdict and our legislation.

Hence, Nietzsche dwells on the idea of peace. But the peace which he advocates differs from that of the pacifists who try to compel peace by force, i.e., through tremendous armies, or who would like to bring it about through gradual disarmament. He opposes his utopia to all others: "And perhaps a great day will come when a people, distinguished...through war and victories...voluntarily proclaims: 'We break the sword'...Disarming oneself, from an intensity of feeling, while one is best armed -- that is the means to real peace...Our liberal representatives of the people lack, as is well known, the time to think about man's nature, or they would know that they are laboring in vain when they work for a 'gradual lessening of the military burden.'"

He believes that the unavoidability of war is, in the first place, psychologically rooted in man's urge to extremes: "For the present, wars provide the greatest agitation of the imagination after all Christian raptures and horrors have grown stale." Perilous explorations, ocean voyages, and conquests of mountains are unavowed surrogates for war. It seems to him essential that wars should arise from such obscure compulsion if man is to retain his potentialities: "It is pure fancy to expect much of man, once he has forgotten how to conduct war." One can see "that a highly cultured and therefore necessarily wearied humanity like that of the present Europeans needs not only wars but the greatest and most terrible of wars -- i.e., temporary lapses into barbarism -- in order not to lose its culture and its very existence by means of culture."

However, the glorification of war as such cannot be Nietzsche's intention. Like nature, war proceeds "without the concern for the worth of the individual." In its disfavor we can say: "It makes the victor stupid and the vanquished malicious; in favor of war: in either of these ways, it makes men more natural by turning them into barbarians; for culture, wartime is wintertime -- the time for sleep -- and man comes out of it more vigorous for good or evil."
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old December 15th, 2010 #6
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default the jews

from pp. 338-9 of Safranski's book:

It is indisputable that Nietzsche was an "anti-anti-semite," for the simple reason that when he pictured anti-Semitism, he saw the hated figures of his brother-in-law Bernhard Forster and his sister. Furthermore, he abhorred German chauvinism. He regarded the anti-Semitic movement of the 1880s as a mutiny of the mediocre, who unjustifiably played themselves up as the master race just because they considered themselves Aryans...

Nietzsche was an anti-anti-semite to the point of writing in one of his last letters, which were all tinged with madness: "I will simply have all anti-Semites shot." Yet he also developed a theory in On the Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, and The Antichrist according to which Judaism had played a major role in ushering in and guiding the "slave revolt in morality." In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche even managed to express a grudging admiration for the incomparably creative ressentiment that had imposed a "revaluation of all values" on the world, first when Jewish law was introduced and later when the Jewish apostate Paul transcended this law. Nietzsche regarded this revaluation as an essential component of a "secret black art of a truly grand-scale politics of revenge." A renaissance of "noble" values would now need to be enacted against the Jewish revaluation, but the Jewish success story still merited our respect as an example of an unconditional will to power that understood how to win over the allegiance of the weak. The Christian commandment to love thy neighbor impressed Nietzsche as an extraordinarily clever and sublime strategy of the will to power. In some writings, notably in Twilight of the Idols, he employed even more adamant moral and philosophical arguments to advocate anti-Judaism, and introduced an occasional hint of racial biology: "Christianity, with its roots in Judaism and comprehensible only as a growth from this soil, represents the countermovement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege; it is anti-Aryan religion par excellence."
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 5th, 2011 #7
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default the left

from p. 525 of Cate's book:



From famous persons Nietzsche moved on to popular issues -- as in section 34 (Christian and Anarchist):

"Whether one attributes one's feeling vile to others or to oneself -- the Socialist does the former, the Christian, for example, the latter -- makes no essential difference. What is common to both, and unworthy in both, is that someone should be to blame for the fact that one suffers -- in short, that the sufferer prescribes for himself the honey of revenge as a medicine for his suffering..."

Here is another example, equally pertinent to the grave problems of today. Section 38 (My Conception of Freedom):

"The value of a thing sometimes lies not in what one attains with it, but in what one pays for it -- what it costs us. I give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: subsequently there is nothing more harmful to freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what they bring about: they undermine the will to power, they are the levelling of mountain and valley elevated to a moral principle, they make small, cowardly and smug -- it is the herd-animal that triumphs with them every time. Liberalism: in plain words, herd-animalization...As long as they are still being fought for, these same institutions produce quite different effects; they then in fact promote freedom mightily...The man who has beome free -- and how much more the mind that has become free -- tramples on the contemptible sort of well-being dreamed by the shop keepers, Christians, cows, women, Englishmen and other democrats..."
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 5th, 2011 #8
Simo Häyhä
Senior Member
 
Simo Häyhä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
Default Women

Quote:
XVIII. OLD AND YOUNG WOMEN.

“Why stealest thou along so furtively in the twilight, Zarathustra? And what hidest thou so carefully under thy mantle?

Is it a treasure that hath been given thee? Or a child that hath been born thee? Or goest thou thyself on a thief’s errand, thou friend of the evil?”

Verily, my brother, said Zarathustra, it is a treasure that hath been given me: it is a little truth which I carry.

But it is naughty, like a young child; and if I hold not its mouth, it screameth too loudly.

As I went on my way alone to–day, at the hour when the sun declineth, there met me an old woman, and she spake thus unto my soul:

“Much hath Zarathustra spoken also to us women, but never spake he unto us concerning woman.”

And I answered her: “Concerning woman, one should only talk unto men.”
“Talk also unto me of woman,” said she; “I am old enough to forget it presently.”

And I obliged the old woman and spake thus unto her:

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?

Two different things wanteth the true man: danger and diversion. Therefore wanteth he woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

Too sweet fruits—these the warrior liketh not. Therefore liketh he woman;—bitter is even the sweetest woman.

Better than man doth woman understand children, but man is more childish than woman.

In the true man there is a child hidden: it wanteth to play. Up then, ye women, and discover the child in man!

A plaything let woman be, pure and fine like the precious stone, illumined with the virtues of a world not yet come.

Let the beam of a star shine in your love! Let your hope say: “May I bear the Superman!”

In your love let there be valour! With your love shall ye assail him who inspireth you with fear!

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.

Let man fear woman when she loveth: then maketh she every sacrifice, and everything else she regardeth as worthless.

Let man fear woman when she hateth: for man in his innermost soul is merely evil; woman, however, is mean.

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.”

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

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

Obey, must the woman, and find a depth for her surface. Surface, is woman’s soul, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water.

Man’s soul, however, is deep, its current gusheth in subterranean caverns: woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.

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?

And now accept a little truth by way of thanks! I am old enough for it!
Swaddle it up and hold its mouth: otherwise it will scream too loudly, the little truth.”
“Give me, woman, thy little truth!” said I. And thus spake the old woman:
“Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!”—

Thus spake Zarathustra.
Quote:
Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the "powerful", the "strong", the men.
The Will To Power
 
Old February 7th, 2011 #9
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Well I'm sure glad that Herr Radl and I aren't the only ones around here who are fans of Fritz (even though I do suspect ulterior motives for your post, Simo). Jus' kid'n'.

And speaking of The Will to Power and Thus Spake Zarathustra, my next post will be on the Ubermensch and Nietzsche's thoughts on Darwinism. You'll see what it is exactly that piqued NS theoreticians interest in Nietzschean philosophy. Meanwhile, I've got much more serious matters to attend to -- like posting pics of questionable taste in the funny pics thread.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #10
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
And speaking of The Will to Power and Thus Spake Zarathustra, my next post will be on the Ubermensch and Nietzsche's thoughts on Darwinism. You'll see what it is exactly that piqued NS theoreticians interest in Nietzschean philosophy.
You have to wonder what Hitler's view on Nietzsche was though.

We know Mussolini was a big fan. Hitler even sent him a collectors edition of the complete Nietzsche when the war was going to shit and Mussolini was stuck sitting around in '43 or '44 I believe. I believe the postcard on the box said "sit around, read these, stop fucking up the war".

But Hitler himself never invoked Nietzsche in any of his speeches, and never even mentioned that he existed if I recall (sans the photo op at the Nietzsche Archive). Though, he invoked Schopenhauer on numerous occasions and speeches all the way from the days of Munich basements to the height of the war.

I think perhaps it was just another thing for the public's sake, to not prop up someone who's name was affiliated so easily with a book like The Anti-Christ, and someone who smited an NS hero like Wagner more or less for his retreat to Christianity in his old age. Obviously, it has to be considered that there was that period of time up until the mid-30's when he was still courting the military brass, and many were the devout Christian Friedrich Paulus types.

EDIT: Though, I'll say this speech in '38, after all who needed to be courted were, this felt very Nietzschean, this speech on art and architecture, almost feels like he is two steps away from saying "Rome was Superior to Christian Europe" : http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma...%20English.htm

The table talk third party commentary purporting Hitler to say of Nietzsche as 'blowing away Kant and Schopenhauer' will always be claims without proof as opposed to official speeches and statements. Even though I don't think it matters as much, considering my perception tells me that looking at that 1938 speech I just linked, I do believe that he held that position.

Regardless, I still haven't read this man enough times to fully grasp it. I don't think it can all be understood on a once-through. I'm going through Genealogy of Morality again, and BG&E next. I still felt a bit retarded last time I went through Zarathustra (the second time), feeling there was a lot there in those words I wasn't grasping as much as if I'd read the rest a few more times.

To think the German soldiers of WWI were issued a copy of this book as a gift, you have to wonder how they felt, how many actually tried to read it. I can see how it's an upper though, the way it flows, even not grasping it all fully. I felt an upper the first time I read it, yet I felt a bit of the equivalent of a culture shock via a book and words (like an alien culture). This was the Thomas Common translation, which I still think is more moving than the cold and dead Kaufmann translations that are preached by these Kosher-stamped academics.

The thing that is the most disappointing is looking at these modern academics and modern philosophy students on forums, and they all try to nullify and marginalize everything Nietzsche says as him either being nuts or another dreamer seeking a utopia. In reality, I think that is more due to the UNTERMENSCH being your typical philosophy major in modern academia. YES! AGREED! Anyone who pays for a philosophy degree in modern academia - in time or money! - is a fucking idiot!

I'd call what the NS DID in the 30's before the war a utopia. I'd call that pretty Ubermensch.

In fact it seems more and more that this generation of even the baby boomers wants to call what used to be normal now 'utopian'. As if what was the norm is now impossible. Such a demoralized state is the norm now.

Apparently Hitler saw that a lot of people were slumping into these books for solace as well at a time very similar to now. In reality, this is true. Philosophy will give no solution to the immediate problem. It is to say that it would serve the masses better as a pass-time than video games - especially after the battle has been won, but a fight is what is called for now, and it needs all of the attention available: (taken from: http://der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/22-07-28.htm)

Quote:
For I tell you: the young man who does not find his way to the place where in the last resort the destiny of his people is most truly represented, only studies philosophy and in a time like this buries himself behind his books or sits at home by the fire, he is no German youth! I call upon you! Join our Storm Divisions! And however many insults and slanders you may hear if you do join, you all know that the Storm Divisions have been formed for our protection, for your protection, and at the same time not merely for the protection of the Movement, but for the protection of a Germany that is to be.

Last edited by P.E.; February 8th, 2011 at 12:14 PM.
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #11
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

"Ubermensch"; definition from the Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism by Carol Diethe:

Der Ubermensch is Nietzche's name for the hypothetical strong individual whom he proposes as an antidote to the cultural and moral pigmy produced by European decadence. This man of the future is to be produced through the nurturing of certain qualities such as self-mastery, courage and "hardness." The latter quality is a response to the Christian belief that meekness is a virtue. Nietzsche thought that Christianity had thereby encouraged a slave morality so that people obeyed the ascetic priest and believed the values peddled by him regarding what was good and evil. Turning all this on its head, Nietzsche advised the individual to accept the death of God in a positive way so that he could go over and beyond the restraints upon him, especially those restricting his instinctive life. He should create his own life, and in fact his own values. Only in this way could he become the noble Ubermensch as taught by Zarathustra in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. This self-creativity involves other facets of Nietzsche's thought, since the will must be employed to affirm life: the Ubermensch is thus also a repository of the will to power.

Unlike the "last man" who has accepted his lot and who regards himself (mistakenly in Nietzsche's view) as contented, the Ubermensch will be the epitome of striving. By conquering negative tendencies in his psyche to the point of sublimination through Selbstuberwindung (self-overcoming), he will be beyond the pettiness of the ressentiment which slave morality encourages. Although the Ubermensch thus anticipates the man of the future, there is a real justification for saying that he also looks backwards, to the ancient Greeks who acted fearlessly and unreflectingly. It was this type of independence which Nietzsche labelled "noble." However, the question for Nietzsche, living in Otto von Bismarck's Germany, was: how could such a noble individual behave in a corrupt society in which morality has skewed good to appear as evil, and vice versa? The answer, for Nietzsche, lay in a transvaluation of values, albeit at the individual level. Clearly Nietzsche inferred that the circumstances for the emergence of the new type of man had not yet evolved.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #12
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
You have to wonder what Hitler's view on Nietzsche was though.

We know Mussolini was a big fan. Hitler even sent him a collectors edition of the complete Nietzsche when the war was going to shit and Mussolini was stuck sitting around in '43 or '44 I believe.

But Hitler himself never invoked Nietzsche in any of his speeches, and never even mentioned that he existed if I recall (sans the photo op at the Nietzsche Archive). Though, he invoked Schopenhauer on numerous occasions and speeches all the way from the days of Munich basements to the height of the war.

I think perhaps it was just another thing for the public's sake, to not prop up someone who's name was affiliated so easily with a book like The Anti-Christ, and someone who smited an NS hero like Wagner more or less for his retreat to Christianity in his old age. Obviously, it has to be considered that there was that period of time up until the mid-30's when he was still courting the military brass, and many were the devout Christian Friedrich Paulus types.

EDIT: Though, I'll say this speech in '38, after all who needed to be courted were, this felt very Nietzschean, this speech on art and architecture, almost feels like he is two steps away from saying "Rome was Superior to Christian Europe" : http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma...%20English.htm

The table talk third party commentary purporting Hitler to say of Nietzsche as 'blowing away Kant and Schopenhauer' will always be claims without proof as opposed to official speeches and statements. Even though I don't think it matters as much, considering my perception tells me that looking at that 1938 speech I just linked, I do believe that he held that position.

Regardless, I still haven't read this man enough times to fully grasp it. I don't think it can all be understood on a once-through. I'm going through Genealogy of Morality again, and BG&E next. I still felt a bit retarded last time I went through Zarathustra (the second time), feeling there was a lot there in those words I wasn't grasping as much as if I'd read the rest a few more times.

To think the German soldiers of WWI were issued a copy of this book as a gift, you have to wonder how they felt, how many actually tried to read it. I can see how it's an upper though, the way it flows, even not grasping it all fully. I felt an upper the first time I read it, yet I felt a bit of the equivalent of a culture shock via a book and words (like an alien culture). This was the Thomas Common translation, which I still think is more moving than the cold and dead Kaufmann translations that are preached by these Kosher-stamped academics.

The thing that is the most disappointing is looking at these modern academics and modern philosophy students on forums, and they all try to nullify and marginalize everything Nietzsche says as him either being nuts or another dreamer seeking a utopia.

I'd call what the NS DID in the 30's before the war a utopia. I'd call that pretty Ubermensch.

In fact it seems more and more that this generation of even the baby boomers wants to call what used to be normal now 'utopian'. As if what was the norm is now impossible. Such a demoralized state is the norm now.
Actually Hitler was quite a public fan of Nietzsche as well as private. He went out of his way to introduce himself on the spur of the moment to Nietzsche's aged sister Elisabeth at an opera (I think it was) as she sat all by her lonesome. He also paid at least one highly-publicized visit to her at home and attended her funeral. So I don't think AH was trying to keep his admiration of Nietzsche under wraps.

As far as the Nietzsche-Wagner rift goes, Hitler may have been torn somewhat. We know that he was smitten by the Master and that Nietzsche, whom Wagner kindly took under his wing when he was an absolute nobody, ended their relationship once he managed to gather a significant following and felt big enough to talk shit about his benefactor. And of course Nietzsche's primary point of contention with Wagner was the latter's vehement and public antisemitism. IMO, Nietzsche was merely being naive as to what he perceived as being undeserved "jealousy" of the jews' success in Europe. Had he been born 50 years later and witnessed the rise of Zionism in the closing years of the 19th century, and what jews had wrought in the first half of the 20th in consequence, I think he may have well changed his tune regarding his admiration of the parasite.

And don't feel "retarded" at not being able to grasp Nietzsche fully upon first reading. I picked up Human, All Too Human years back and quit after the first dozen or so pages. Perhaps the best way of understanding the man is to first read a couple good bios on him and his philosophy. A knowledgable author can work wonders to help interpret the more difficult aspects of Nietzschean thought. I myself have five such books, one of which is a Nietzschean dictionary which is a tremendous help.



Nice. Another fan of Fritz aboard.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #13
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Thanks for the post, and this thread! Refreshing to discuss these kind of topics with people here, which seem so far away from other modern academia indoctrinated philosophy boards. They are terrible!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
Actually Hitler was quite a public fan of Nietzsche as well as private. He went out of his way to introduce himself on the spur of the moment to Nietzsche's aged sister Elisabeth at an opera (I think it was) as she sat all by her lonesome. He also paid at least one highly-publicized visit to her at home and attended her funeral. So I don't think AH was trying to keep his admiration of Nietzsche under wraps.
Ah. Didn't know it was more public. It makes sense considering Zarathustra was one of the books at Tannenberg along with Mein Kampf and TMOTTC. Maybe it was just me, but I saw Schopenhauer invoked more often, especially in the early days speeches (1920-33).

Quote:
As far as the Nietzsche-Wagner rift goes, Hitler may have been torn somewhat. We know that he was smitten by the Master and that Nietzsche, whom Wagner kindly took under his wing when he was an absolute nobody, ended their relationship once he managed to gather a significant following and felt big enough to talk shit about his benefactor. And of course Nietzsche's primary point of contention with Wagner was the latter's vehement and public antisemitism. IMO, Nietzsche was merely being naive as to what he perceived as being undeserved "jealousy" of the jews' success in Europe. Had he been born 50 years later and witnessed the rise of Zionism in the closing years of the 19th century, and what jews had wrought in the first half of the 20th in consequence, I think he may have well changed his tune regarding his admiration of the parasite.
I know a lot of people here smite Napoleon, but this reminds me of him. Nietzsche held Napoleon in very high regard, to paraphrase from memory (of Twilight of the Idols where he spoke of him), he felt Napoleon brought that flare of the great Ancients to Europe that it so desperately needed more of. And I align with your perception of Nietzsche's naivete, as well as believe this very same too-early-to-see naivete was shared by Napoleon himself.

I think Napoleon would get a lot less of the same flak Nietzsche does for his anti-anti-semitism, had Napoleon seen what eventually happened. These two men share that same unfortunate burden it seems.

I almost want to go down the path of saying that these two men were saying 'we can't be so weak, we need to be as ruthless as the Romans, we need to challenge ourselves to be stronger than these people, and accept the challenge, and not run from them'.

But that's a different topic, and I may be wrong. I don't believe that either of those men would endorse Talmudic Zionist slavery over the West. I think a lot of the animus toward Napoleon also comes from Hitler's opinions of France. It's true, France degenerated terribly since the days of Napoleon, which is why people can only think of Napoleon when they think of great Frenchmen (an Italian who spoke broken French, haha). If I'm not mistaken, I believe Hitler was a fan of Napoleon as well. I don't think he ever 'hated' the French people as much as his disdain for what they had allowed themselves to become. He probably considered them brothers who needed to get their shit together.

Regardless, the important thing is that both Hitler and Napoleon are icons because they pushed for ultimate Roman-like strength in the Occident. True hegemony. It is men like those that are needed to expand white lands and the white population of the earth and reverse this terror we live in. Only men like them can return the world to the status of Rome and beyond. That is why I stick up for Napoleon when he is smited. After all, he was fighting the same foreign-invader-seduced England - that Zionist occupation front and 'pirate state' as Hitler called it - that the Third Reich was.

And, I think maybe both of them could've took some of Spenglers advice, for both Hitler and Napoleon to be a bit less narrowly German and French, and more for the Occident. Now, it is unquestionable with our world population of 8% or so, we can't make divisions like "you are French" or "you are German". Respect for cultures, sure. But no infighting.

To make a historical comparison, the little group of Spartans and Athenians grouping up in the Peloponnesian War to take on a much larger force.

That's how whites should be looking at the world. Now certainly.

Quote:
And don't feel "retarded" at not being able to grasp Nietzsche fully upon first reading. I picked up Human, All Too Human years back and quit after the first dozen or so pages. Perhaps the best way of understanding the man is to first read a couple good bios on him and his philosophy. A knowledgable author can work wonders to help interpret the more difficult aspects of Nietzschean thought. I myself have five such books, one of which is a Nietzschean dictionary which is a tremendous help.
Thanks

And yes, a healthy intro is always nice. For all who see this thread and become interested, I've read this one, and it was a worthwhile read. An introduction to Nietzsche by Anthony M. Ludovici. http://www.anthonymludovici.com/mw_int.htm

There are many other good texts on his site related to Nietzsche. And if you dig enough around the internet, there is a free digital version of Ludovici's translation of "The Will to Power", I believe in a 'Complete Nietzsche' collection published by Oscar Levy where Ludovici was the translator.

He actually went to Germany during the NS era of the 30's, learned to speak German, and then came back and lectured on it. And people like Kaufmann had the audacity to say he wasn't a philosopher to naive college Freshmen and the entire English-speaking west of whom he'd like to profit on Nietzsche's work. I doubt he was ever challenged in his days of teaching in the Post-WWII West, when there was no internet to find the truth about Ludovici. Kaufmann was safe in his lies.

Quote:
Nice. Another fan of Fritz aboard.
Absolutely!

Last edited by P.E.; February 8th, 2011 at 02:19 PM.
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #14
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default

Thanks for the excellent contribution, P.E. I can see that you're no newbie to all this.

Re: the Wagner-Nietzsche breakup over Richard's virulent antisemitism, I thought this may be of interest to you (from pp. 64-5 of Rudiger Safranski's Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography):

Classifying subversive knowledge as a "Jewish" principle (as Nietzsche had done in a university lecture -- MH) reflected a basic conviction in the Wagner household. Perhaps Nietzsche had adopted it from the Wagners. Even so, Cosima Wagner considered it necessary to warn this young admirer: "I do have one request from you now," wrote Cosima on Ferbruary 5, 1870, "namely, not to stir up this hornet's nest. Do you follow me? Do not mention the Jews, especially not in passing. Later, when you want to take up the bitter fight, in God's name, but not from the beginning; you want to avoid having everything on your path turn confused and chaotic...You do, of course, know that from the bottom of my soul that I agree with your claim."

Richard Wagner also applauded Nietzsche's lecture. He concurred with each of its points, but admitted to reacting with "shock" to the "boldness" with which Nietzsche "communicates his new ideas." Wagner, like his wife, counseled caution. "I am worried about you," he wrote, "and hope from the bottom of my heart that you do not suffer any consequences."



Well, it would seem as though Germans had as much to fear from the jew by way of retribution as they do today, eh? It appears as though the Wagners were trying to warn Fritz against throwing away both his reputation and career by naming the jew. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Matt
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #15
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hetzenauer View Post
Actually Hitler was quite a public fan of Nietzsche as well as private. He went out of his way to introduce himself on the spur of the moment to Nietzsche's aged sister Elisabeth at an opera (I think it was) as she sat all by her lonesome. He also paid at least one highly-publicized visit to her at home and attended her funeral. So I don't think AH was trying to keep his admiration of Nietzsche under wraps.
See I would dispute that: there is a massive debate about whether Der Chef read and admired Nietzsche or not. Ryback (in 'Hitler's Private Library') for example claims that Der Chef did not read Nietzsche at all and picked him up second hand (not surprising considering that Nietzsche was a philosopher much in fashion among both the revolutionary conservative and völkisch right). While others; Jacob (in 'German Conservative Foreign Policy') for example, assert that there is much in Nietzsche that Der Chef took and created National Socialism as a logical extension of it.

Now as for Elisabeth I think this is where you need to be aware of context MH. Elisabeth was well known on the anti-Semitic circuit via her husband; Bernhard Forster, who was heavily involved with anti-Semitism and pan-German nationalism until his suicide. Now we know that both of them (i.e. Bernhard and Elisabeth) were close with people like Theodor Fritsch who was the declared altmeister of the NSDAP (as well as an NSDAP Reichstag member in his later years) so it would be far more likely that Elisabeth was seen as a fellow 'old time' anti-Semite and widow of a notable proto-NS intellectual but more incidentally as the sister of a fashionable völkisch philosopher. Alfred Rosenberg would be the inverse of that IMO, but we must always stress context for these things as it is very easy to make a mountain out of a molehill.

For example see Peter Pulzer, 1988, 'The Rise of Political anti-Semitism in Germany & Austria', 2nd Edition, Halban: London; George Mosse, 1966, 'The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich', 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London and Fritz Stern, 1974, 'The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of Germanic Ideology', 2nd Edition, University of California Press: Los Angeles.

You might want to contrast the attitude of the NSDAP towards Nietzsche with the attitude toward Paul de Lagarde whose books we know Nietzsche read and against whom he later wrote as an 'example of German chauvinism'. Robert Lougee has some commentary on that in his 1962, 'Paul de Lagarde', 1st Editon, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. In essence writers in the Third Reich roundly criticised Lagarde for his failure to see the jews as a biological; as opposed to religio-cultural, threat and argued that this had blinded (and to an extent blunted) his critiques of them because it had meant that Lagarde; like those involved in Protestant and Catholic anti-Judaism, had to admit the possibly of the acceptable and sincere jewish convert rather than deal with jews as a biological entity with no exceptions regardless of personal merit/variation.

Quote:
As far as the Nietzsche-Wagner rift goes, Hitler may have been torn somewhat. We know that he was smitten by the Master and that Nietzsche, whom Wagner kindly took under his wing when he was an absolute nobody, ended their relationship once he managed to gather a significant following and felt big enough to talk shit about his benefactor.
But that assumes that Nietzsche was a primary thinker in Der Chef's pantheon: no? We know Wagner was a huge influence, but Nietzsche is heavily debated in much the same way as Schopenhauer, Hegel and Fichte are.

Quote:
And of course Nietzsche's primary point of contention with Wagner was the latter's vehement and public antisemitism.
But yet Wagner had jewish friends such as Samuel Lehrs and I do believe he was taken to task for that by authors in the Third Reich in the same way that Marr was heavily criticised because three out of his four wives were jewesses and he spent a lot of time arguing for race mixing.

As I have said before attributing anti-Semitism to Wagner is too much, but a general anti-Judaism is quite reasonable given that he wrote against 'jewish influence' not so much against jews per se and the debate as then framed was about jews becoming good Germans and ceasing to be jews not that jews were a biological entity that was therefore entirely unsuited to even be in Germany.

For example see Marc Weiner, 1997, 'Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination', 2nd Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln. I believe Leon Poliakov mentions this in the fourth volume of his 'History of anti-Semitism' and deals with the Wagner controversy in some detail (his long commentary on Voltaire's anti-Semitism in the third volume is also of particular interest). Albert Lindemann (in his 1997, 'Esau's Tears', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York) also points out in detail that Wagner was not an anti-Semite in the sense meant by us today, but rather anti-Judaism in the vague generalised sense then common in German anti-Semitic circles.

Quote:
IMO, Nietzsche was merely being naive as to what he perceived as being undeserved "jealousy" of the jews' success in Europe. Had he been born 50 years later and witnessed the rise of Zionism in the closing years of the 19th century, and what jews had wrought in the first half of the 20th in consequence, I think he may have well changed his tune regarding his admiration of the parasite.
Possibly, but I think we would find that Nietzsche was merely reacting against social mores of his time (why focus his critique on Christianity, pan-Germanism and anti-Semitism if he was not) and also against those that were prevalent in his hated brother-in-law (which Forster very publicly ascribed to in all three cases).
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; February 8th, 2011 at 02:12 PM.
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #16
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
And yes, a healthy intro is always nice. For all who see this thread and become interested, I've read this one, and it was a worthwhile read.

There are many other good texts on his site related to Nietzsche. And if you dig enough around the internet, there is a free digital version of Ludovici's translation of "The Will to Power", I believe in a 'Complete Nietzsche' collection published by Oscar Levy where Ludovici was the translator.
Ludovici was a fascinating character who I have long admired I have to say. He's one of those odd and often unjustly forgotten racialist philosophers who were well respected in their day, but didn't survive the post-World War II metaphorical 'purge' of the 'right' in favour of the Judaisers.
__________________
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #17
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Ludovici was a fascinating character who I have long admired I have to say. He's one of those odd and often unjustly forgotten racialist philosophers who were well respected in their day, but didn't survive the post-World War II metaphorical 'purge' of the 'right' in favour of the Judaisers.
I tell you, as an American with 75% Italian (northern) 25% German (Bavarian) heritage, finding admirable people of Italian lineage who were great thinkers to be proud of is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

This man - even though he was undoubtedly anglicized - is one of the few. A lot of good writing on that site!

To identify as an Italian-American, you may as well carry a tape recorder of a bonehead mobster saying "where's da meatballs".

No! This is how Italian men of character should look! Yes! I'll be a snob!


Last edited by P.E.; February 8th, 2011 at 03:54 PM.
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #18
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
I tell you, as an American with 75% Italian (northern) 25% German (Bavarian) heritage, finding admirable people of Italian lineage who were great thinkers to be proud of is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

This man - even though he was undoubtedly anglicized - is one of the few. A lot of good writing on that site!

To identify as an Italian-American, you may as well carry a tape recorder of a bonehead mobster saying "where's da meatballs".

No! This is how Italian men of character should look! Yes! I'll be a snob!
Another one you might like; even if he is an anthropologist, is
Giuseppe_Sergi Giuseppe_Sergi
. Even if I happen to disagree with him (as I am a Nordicist): he is an interesting writer.

I'd recommend Julius Evola, but I personally think he was pompous bag of wind (but that's probably just my aversion to mysticism speaking).
__________________
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #19
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

I've looked at some Evola previously, and I remember feeling a bit turned off after not very much reading it. I don't remember why. I may revisit it later, but it is very low on the priority queue for reading.

This Sergi does look quite interesting though. I remember reading of a quip in the 30's (before Italy and Germany were allied) where Mussolini remarked in a newspaper or something cynically about the racial philosophy of the National Socialists.

I get the feeling after reading this Wikipedia article that whatever Sergi wrote in this The Mediterranean Race book, probably gets close to Mussolini's sentiments (or maybe not, since he attacked Greece).

Particularly that part on the wikipedia article about how he characterized the Mediterranids of Greece and Rome as a creative and imaginative people, but volatile and unstable, in contrast with Nordic characteristics that are more compatible with modern civic cultures and economies.

Eh, what a weird twist a lot of this is. There was this nordic vs mediterranid animus in the early 20th century, then you have these leaders quipping, then allying, then you have things like the neo-classical architecture of the Third Reich which is great (the new Reich Chancellery, what a marvel!), and you have people like Ludovici who characteristically to me seem more Nordic than Mediterranid - in character, that is to say more civilized, yeah I said it, as an Italian, I am a pariah now, haha. Well, then again, it was Nietzsche who said man should be violent, carefree, and mocking. Hmm!

Well, in the least, it looks like a fun read.

Already downloaded and bumped up the queue. Thanks!

Last edited by P.E.; February 8th, 2011 at 06:51 PM.
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #20
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
I've looked at some Evola previously, and I remember feeling a bit turned off after not very much reading it. I don't remember why. I may revisit it later, but it is very low on the priority queue for reading.
Fair enough. I only suggested him because he is one of the few Italian fascist thinkers I know of and have read.

I can always cull some Italian fascist thinkers from the extensive literature on the subject if you'd like?

Quote:
This Sergi does look quite interesting though. I remember reading of a quip in the 30's (before Italy and Germany were allied) where Mussolini remarked in a newspaper or something cynically about the racial philosophy of the National Socialists.

I get the feeling after reading this Wikipedia article that whatever Sergi wrote in this The Mediterranean Race book, probably gets close to Mussolini's sentiments (or maybe not, since he attacked Greece).

<Snip>
Interestingly his son; Sergio, lectured in the Third Reich in 1938/1939 about his and his father's racial theories and had a couple of public debates with Nordicist academics (affiliated with the Ahnenerbe). I believe he even lectured an audience of SS officers/officer candidates once.

Of course I strongly disagree with his theories (which smack of Waddell's 'Phoenician origin' ideas), but on a point of principle I will always give a European racialist intellectual the time of day. As for Rome you should read Franz Altheim's 1938 'Die Soldatenkaiser' (only ever published in the original German): it argues for a (Germanic) racial interpretation of Roman history among other things. Also Herman Wirth's books (such as his 1928 'Der Aufgang der Menschheit') are always worth a read if rather outlandish at times.
__________________

Last edited by Karl Radl; February 8th, 2011 at 07:24 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 PM.
Page generated in 1.29949 seconds.