|
February 9th, 2011 | #21 | |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
Quote:
And yes, I'm well aware of Elisabeth's role in the whole affair -- freeloading publicity hound that she was. Fritz loathed her and with good reason. She was riding on his coattails throughout most of his career and after Nietzsche's breakdown the bitch was actually charging admission for curiosity seekers and fans of Fritz to catch a glimpse of him as he ranted and raved in his confined room. Once she managed to wrangle control of Nietzsche's works from their mother, she deleted certain passages from Nietzshe's archives that were highly critical of her. She in effect rewrote much of his work and published what she and her cohorts deemed to be more damning of jewry. As to Wagner being antisemitic or anti-Judaistic, well that's simply a matter of semantics, definition and interpretation of terms. I myself can say that I'm not against jews "per se", but against their influence -- their corruptive influence -- on Western society and this would be true. But the fact remains that anyone critical of any aspects of jewry's machinations is branded antisemitic, and this would include Wagner. Just because he had a few friends who happened to be jews doesn't take away from that. A man of his renown was bound to come into contact and have business dealings with many more jews than the average German. And let's not forget that he sponsored and contributed to an openly antisemitic publication (was it a newsletter or newspaper?); just one more straw onto the camel's back for Nietzsche.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
|
February 9th, 2011 | #22 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
The Ubermensch; Part I (from pp. 260-3 of Safranski's book):
Nietzsche had already formulated a conceptual model of the Ubermensch in Human, All Too Human: "You should become the master of yourself and also the master of your own virtues. Previously they were your masters, but they must be nothing more than your tools, just some tools among others. You should achieve power over your pros and cons and learn how to put them forth and hang them back in accordance with your higher aim." The Ubermensch's mastery of self-configuration is not the only issue here. There are also biological overtones in Zarathustra's speeches, especially when he explains that man in his current form evolved from the ape, but that there is still too much of the ape in him and too much laziness, which wants to revert to the animal kingdom. Man is a creature in transition. He is still in flux between the ape from which he originated and the Ubermensch into which he may evolve. "What is the ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And this is exactly what man should be for the Ubermensch: a laughing stock or painful embarrassment." In matters concerning the physical appearance of the Ubermensch, Zarathustra confines himself to this advice for those contemplating marriage: "Do not reproduce yourself, but rather produce upward! May the garden of marriage help you do this." Nietzsche was thoroughly familiar with his contemporaries' ideas on biological breeding and evolution. While in Sils-Maria in the summer of 1881, he had sent for literature on this subject. He would have had to be completely ignorant of the widespread trend of biological evolutionary thought spurred by Darwinism to have escaped its influence. Despite all of his criticism of the specifics of Darwinism, Nietzsche was unable to extricate himself entirely from the powerful implications of this theory. Two basic ideas were considered common knowledge in the intellectual culture of those years, and they had become unquestioned assumptions on his part as well. The notion of development was one of them. It is not a new idea, at least not in reference to the cultural sphere. All of Hegelianism and the subsequent historical school introduced it as a law of development of intellectual metamorphoses. Darwin's new contribution, the second of these basic ideas, was the application of the thesis of development to biological substance. The implications of a biological history of man's evolution from the animal kingdom could be viewed as a drastic debasement of man. It makes the ape an early relative of man, which led Nietzsche to have his Zarathustra explain: "Once you were apes, and even now man is more ape than any ape." The definition of man as a product of biological development implied that even the so-called mind was regarded as a bodily function of the head, spinal cord, nerves, and so forth. It is in this sense that Nietzsche also turned his attention to the physiological side of mental faculties and in Zarathustra wrote about the "great rationality of the body; the creative body created the mind for itself as a hand of its will." But this naturalization of the mind and the consequent relativization of the special status of man, which was in effect a disparagement of man, is only one of the two major aspects of Darwinism. The other aspect, in stark contrast to the first, is marked by positively euphoric visions of human evolution, because it was now possible to extend the idea of progress to biological development. If evolution has led to man, why should it stop with man? Why might there not be an even higher form of life, an Ubermensch as a higher biological type? Darwin did not use the term Ubermensch, but the application of biological futurism to man was not unfamiliar to him. The logic of the idea of development was bound to lead to fantasies of this sort. Darwin wrote: "Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not of his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future." Part II tomorrow.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
February 9th, 2011 | #23 | |
Geriatric Coalburner
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
|
I couldn't help but as I read this, to contrast it with the present.
This bit smacks up every inkling of the bourgeois white 'follower', the common man and woman of the current situation in white lands - the west, who will preach their degenerate multicultural (miserable, hypocritical, and genocidal) stance assigned to them by the current anti-white authority. This position they carry that it is immoral to not want aliens among you and those like you. That is something that they were taught, and they hold on to that only because they are followers. The leaders are the ones who disavowed that, and saw through the fact that the only reason that WRONG message STICKS AT ALL is because it comes from an authority, which is only another being who made that choice to subvert others for his will. It screams volumes to the historical fact that the small group of leaders must lead the followers. That the smartest, the wisest, the 'Ubermensch' must be the authority, and that small elite is NOT for everyone. And it is that elite that decides which way a people and a world goes. To put this perspective I see simpler and more practical, we should not, and cannot, look at all whites as people capable of a master morality. We can put the message out there to say "become a master, a leader, a changer, if you wish, it is possible", but that is a personal choice. There are those who choose to change the world - be it for better or worse - and there are those who will just follow whoever the authority is, and willingly espouse their position, to remain in a state of comfort. I see this at every point in history, from the ancients to now, from small personal social circles to larger groups. The 1% who make the change, and the 99% who jump on board when they see the previous authority falling. Or should we say, the 'early adopters' of the new means of security. Everywhere. The reason the masses get behind the new elite is because they become enthralled by a vision of a better life, a better world that is painted by this new elite, and the elite sticks to it with a stronger mental frame than the current authority, never doubting it, never showing any weakness or submission or slave morality, because they know the current situation is merely the act of another man, and to weaken their frame or belief is an act of submission to the opposition, and followers will not follow other followers. They just turn off. Here it is, take what you will from it, I had to type it by hand from the PDF since I couldn't find a reproduction online, so there may be slight errors. P.S.: The bit about Duhring and anti-Semites is more of that naivete we spoke of in this thread, but it doesn't take from the overall message. Or is it that the Jews are the ones who took his advice and are acting as master? Perhaps, considering so many - even in our community - feel they will democratically acquire approval and acceptance from an opposing group, that those people will willingly cede or diminish their position. Well, we know how WWII went. True to the Protocols of Zion, they aligned all of their guns at those who threatened their master position, and fired. From On the Genealogy of Morality (Diethe) Quote:
Last edited by P.E.; February 9th, 2011 at 07:07 PM. |
|
February 10th, 2011 | #24 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
Thanks, buddy -- keep up the good work. Excellent stuff indeed. I myself plan on commenting on Nietzche's philosophy shortly. I just want to post his primary theses first; then I'll get down to business...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
February 10th, 2011 | #25 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
The Ubermensch; Part II (from pp. 266-72 of Safranski's book):
The Ubermensch viewed as a biological type certainly came across as a voguish figure of Darwinism, which was quite discomfitting for Nietzsche... Why did Nietzsche resist the Darwinian misconception if his affinity to Darwin was so obvious?...He accused Darwin of having applied the logic of development in the animal kingdom, which is unreflective, to man. In man, however, all developmental processes are refracted through the medium of consciousness, which means that the higher development of man cannot be conceived of according to the model of the insensible development of nature, but must be regarded instead as a product of free will and creativity. It is therefore impossible to rely on any natural process in regard to the Ubermensch of the future; human intervention is called for. But what kind? Nietzsche had at any rate absorbed enough biologism from the theory of evolution and genetics to consider the idea of breeding to regulate reproduction. His recommendation -- "Do not reproduce yourself, but rather produce upward! -- was cited earlier. What this "upward" means for biology remains vague, but Zarathustra leaves no doubt that the "far too many" should not be allowed to reproduce indiscriminately. "Far too many live, and far too long they hang on their branches. If only a storm would come to shake all of this rot and worm-eaten decay from the tree!" Rampant reproduction must be stopped. Chance and the power of the great masses must not continue to have the upper hand: "We are still fighting step by step with the giant that is accident, and so far only nonsense, senselessness, has governed over the whole of humanity." To prevent the madness of past generations from erupting in current and future generations and landing all of history in an awful state of degeneration, specific means must be taken. Nietzsche's image of the Ubermensch betrays his own ambivelance while unfolding an entire existential drama. The Ubermensch represents a higher biological type and could be the product of deliberate breeding. However, he can also function as an ideal for anyone who wishes to gain power over himself and cultivate his virtues, anyone who is creative and knows the whole spectrum of the human capacity for thought, fantasy, and imagination. Nietzsche's Ubermensch is the consummate realization of human potential and, in this sense, is also a response to the "death of God." Let us recall the famous scene in The Gay Science (note: no, dipshit -- this was written in the 19th century and therefore "gay" doesn't translate into the modern meaning of the term -- MH) in which the "madman" runs about in the bright morning hours yelling, "I am seeking God! I am seeking God!...We killed him!...Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods just to seem worthy of it?" The murderer of God must himself become God -- that is, an Ubermensch -- otherwise he will sink into banality, as Nietzsche attempted to illustrate in this scene. The issue is whether man can retain the ingenuity he employed in inventing an entire heaven of gods, or whether he will be left empty after attacking them. If God is dead because people have realized that they invented him, it is crucial that their powers to posit divinity remain intact. Part III tomorrow.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
February 10th, 2011 | #26 | |
Geriatric Coalburner
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
|
Quote:
Crazy how much this stuff makes your mind run. I didn't want to deviate or hijack the thread further, so I threw more thoughts that sprang out of Genealogy of Morality onto a blog post here, though there are no direct mentions of GoM, it was just a storm of thought that sprang from it. |
|
February 11th, 2011 | #27 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
The Ubermensch; Part III (from p. 272 of Safranski's book):
The Ubermensch embodies the sanctification of this world as a response to the "death of God." The Ubermensch is free of religion. He has not lost it, but reclaimed it for himself. The typical nihilist, by contrast, the "last man," has merely forfeited religion and retained life in all its profane wretchedness. Nietzsche aspired to salvage sanctifying powers for the here and now from the nihilistic tendency of vulgarization by means of his Ubermensch. Nietzsche invoked this idea with powerful imagery, and without sounding preachy, in The Gay Science: "There is a lake that forewent overflowing one day and formed a dam where it had been flowing off before; since then, this lake has been rising higher and higher. Perhaps this very privation will also grant us the strength to endure privation ourselves; perhaps from that point on, man will continue to rise up by not flowing out into a god." The Ubermennsch is the Promethean man who has discovered his theogonic talents. The God outside of him is dead, but the God who is known to live through man and in him is alive. God is a name for the creative power of man. This creative power enables man to partake of the vast dimensions of existence. The first book of Zarathustra closes with these words: "All the gods are dead; now we want the Ubermensch to live." The section called "On the Blissful Islands", in the second book of Zarathustra, expands this idea: "Once you said God when you looked out upon the distant seas; now, however, I have taught you to say: Ubermensch. God is a conjecture, but I do not want your conjectures to reach beyond your creative will. Could you create a god? Then do not talk to me about any gods. But you could certainly create the Ubermensch." At the very instant that man discovers and affirms his theogonic power and in the process learns to revere himself, he stops disparaging his own achievements. When this stage is reached, Zarathustra exclaims: "Only now is the mountain of man's future in labor." The Ubermensch who develops after the death of God is the person who no longer requires a detour via God to find faith in himself. And that's the end of my quotes on the Ubermensch.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
February 11th, 2011 | #28 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
Are you beginning to see the parallels between Nietzschean and National Socialist thought here? Many people today, jews especially, are wary of Nietzschean philosophy because of its close proximity to that of those naughty Nazis of their nightmares. Others contend that NS theoreticians deceptively selected only that of Nietzsche's philosophy which seemed to lend credence to their own. But as a German critic once said, "Tell me what you need, and I'll supply you with the right Nietzsche quotation." Whatever your political stripe, left or right, you can find something to admire about the man; though people of the latter persuasion can no doubt claim him as one of their own with much more certitude and authority than the former could ever possibly hope to. Yes, Nietzsche was opposed to nationalism and antisemitism (though as I said previously, if he had lived to see what the jew had wrought in the 20th century he undoubtedly would've reassessed his opinion of him), but he was vehemently opposed also to virtually all of what the jew pontificates and force feeds to his subjects (and them only) today: religious slave morality (humility, meekness, obedience, etc.); the promotion of lesser beings' welfare over the more worthy among us; the compassionate understanding of the underlying forces for criminal behavior ("It's society's fault, not mine"); the levelling of society via democratic institutions and govt; tolerance and promotion of the darker races' culture and "art" forms; egalitarianism; feminism -- the list goes on and on. Matter of fact, 90% of the views on culture and society expressed by AH in Mein Kampf could just as well have been authored by Nietzsche himself. Anyone reading Der Fuehrer's polemic and works by Fritz, such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra for example, cannot help but notice the remarkable similarities between them.
All this aside, so what if NS theoreticians such as Baeumler and Rosenberg gave particular emphasis to certain aspects of Nietzschean thought to the exclusion of others; those which didn't pertain to their philosophy and goals. They most certainly took nothing out of context and twisted it to suit their "evil" intentions. And after all, who the hell adheres 100% to any man's beliefs, thoughts and opinions? Even today's Christians "pick 'n' choose" which fables and moral lessons of their Holy Babble to believe and pay heed to while discarding those which they find antiquated or just plain "inconvenient"; and these sacred texts are essentially ghost written by God himself no less. So much for the "Yeah but, they chose to adopt only certain elements of Nietzschean philosophy" argument. Right out the window that bullshit goes...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs Last edited by Matthaus Hetzenauer; February 11th, 2011 at 12:13 PM. |
February 11th, 2011 | #29 | |||||||||||||
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
If you admire Nietzsche; much as I do, then it doesn't mean that Der Chef did or if he did in the same way as you or I do. We can't ascertain what Der Chef thought about Nietzsche (or even whether he read him although I consider it likely he did) particularly because he was a fashionable thinker on the völkisch right whose ideas had been melded with many a more popular völkisch writer. To give a similar practical example: I've recently seen it claimed by one; although decidedly absurd most of the time, author (Michael Fitzgerald) that Der Chef read Hegel's works and used his thought regarding heroes and the heroic, when in fact he is not using Hegel's works but rather he is using Thomas Carlyle's thought regarding them in the German translation of 'On Heroes and Hero Worship' (we know he read most of what Carlyle wrote particularly his biography of Frederick the Great, which he returned to in the last days in Berlin). Quote:
Unless you can show that Der Chef's motivation was due in signficant part to Elisabeth's familial connection with Fritz then you cannot argue that it was due to that. We can speculate (and I don't consider it unreasonable to do so), but until you can offer that evidence you cannot reasonably conclude that was the case because the context mitigates your argument and provides a logical explanation which is actually more plausible than a special love of Nietzsche. After all why do you think Der Chef attended mass services? If I might type-cast your argument slightly: if we run with your line of thought and apply it to what we know about Der Chef's visits and correspondence then we could argue; as Marxists do, that Der Chef was a 'tool' of 'big business' because he made a habit of directly talking to Alfred Hugenberg a good deal between 1929 - 1933. He even had indirect relations with Hugenberg's slush funds as early as 1921 and 1922. So are we to therefore to assume that Der Chef was a 'tool' of 'big business' because of his 'friendly' relations with Hugenberg? Or can we assume because we know (as opposed to speculate) that Der Chef admired the jew Otto Weininger's 1903 book; 'Geschlecht und Charakter', that Der Chef was a philo-Semite because of this? I can put this into other contexts as well if you like as we can argue anything from anything in relation to Der Chef because we have a lot of unknowns in his life and thought. You tend to end up arguing for absurd these such Lothar Machtan does in 'The Hidden Hitler' when he argues at length that Der Chef was a faggot. Quote:
Quote:
Oh and you are also missing out Johann von Leers (among others) who was another major (and prolific) ideologue who was member of the SS, a friend (as of 1929) of Goebbels'/Himmler's (he was also married to Herman Wirth's secretary [a very popular author and first head of the Ahnenerbe]) and a high official in the Propaganda Ministry (as well as being a Professor of History at Jena). Then there is Darre to consider for example and even some of Rosenberg's staff at Amt Rosenberg would vie with their master for that slot. I think people tend to overestimate Rosenberg's role as National Socialism has more to do with Goebbels and Himmler than it does with Rosenberg. Rosenberg; in essence, was a relic from the early days of the party who had little to no influence and what he had was as the editor of the Völkischer Beobachter, which was rather less influential than is usually assumed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anti-Semitism is opposition to jews on a biological group level is irrespective of whether one is a follower of Judaism or not. Wagner voiced his opposition to the influence of Judaism not the jews as a biological group. You might call that semantics, but I'd call that pretty important for understanding what Wagner said and the context in which he said it. It is rather like one assuming that Jesus was an anti-Semitic because he called the jews a nasty name once or twice where-as Jesus could only be considered anti-Judaism if one accepted the comments as genuine and without their context. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that makes the jew a National Socialist or 'Der Stuermer' philo-Semitic because? (I am using the same logic you are but using it to explain in a counter example why your logical leaps are unfounded.) Incidentally I might be wrong but didn't Wagner write for Fritsch's 'Antisemitische Korrespondenz' or am I thinking of someone else? ------------------- Incidentally don't take offence at the tone as it isn't meant to be offensive, but rather it is the way I tend to argue (i.e. very aggressively).
__________________
Last edited by Karl Radl; February 11th, 2011 at 01:11 PM. |
|||||||||||||
February 11th, 2011 | #30 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
You're dead wrong on Hitler's not admiring Nietzsche, Karl. Just do a quick search on the subject and you'll find out what I mean. The internet's loaded with documentation.
btw -- There's also a famous photo of him staring at a bust of Nietzsche at the Weimar museum in 1932. I'll see if I can dig it up. more later; time's short...
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
February 11th, 2011 | #31 | ||
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can argue on a similar basis; as I've seen CI do, that pictures of Der Chef coming out of Sunday mass meant that he was a 'Bible Christian' (as V. Herrell puts it). I certainly wouldn't do that personally for much the same reason I don't conclude as you do concerning a Der Chef/Nietzsche close connection. Take your time responding: no need to rush.
__________________
|
||
February 12th, 2011 | #32 |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
Well then, maybe this will convince you (from pp. 575-6 of the Cate's book):
Barely two weeks after his surprise appointment, Chancellor Adolf Hitler made another visit to Weimar to attend a gala performance of Tristan und Isolde, staged to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Richard Wagner's death. Once again, to Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche's rapturous delight, the now omnipotent Fuhrer made a point of visiting her threatre box. Three more visits to Weimar were made by Germany's new Ubermensch during 1934 -- one of them with Hitler's favourite architect, Albert Speer, who was asked to oversee the erection, next to the Nietzsche-Archiv, of a splendid monument honouring the great German thinker whom the new regime had now annexed and made its own. Before she died in early November of 1935 -- her grandiose funeral too was graced by the presence of the Fuhrer --the 88-year-old Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche was gratified to learn that a handsomely bound copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, now become a bible for the adolescents of the Hitler-Jugend, had been solemnly placed, alongside Mein Kampf and Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century, in the vault of the Tannenberg Memorial (commemorating the Germans' decisive victory over the Russians in the autumn of 1914) as one of the three ideological pillars of Germany's Third Reich. And since the name of National Socialism's chief theoretician sprang up (and for good measure) this from Carol Diethe's Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism: ALFRED ROSENBERG (1893-1946) Ideologue of National Socialism. As an aide to Hitler, he attended the celebration of the centenary of Nietzsche's birth at the Nietzche-Archiv and made a speech about Nietzsche's role in Germany's destiny which was printed in the Volkischer Beobachter of 17 October 1944. In the same year, his book on Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche (1944), was published by the official National Socialist Press. So there we have it. These are all well-documented facts, not opinions or conjecture. And you're telling me that Der Fuhrer didn't admire the man? Come on already, Karl, concede the point.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
February 12th, 2011 | #33 | |
Geriatric Coalburner
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
|
Quote:
Rosenberg seems an interesting character. I've still not fully read his TMOTTC, but it's high on the list (too bad most speed reading techniques ARE a myth if you give two hoots about retention and relation/reflection ). I've read enough snippets of him though to get an idea. The fact that his book ended up in Tannenberg with only two others, and that he was hung for his thought and writing, and that the prosecution made their point along the lines of 'this man lived in all of these offensive books, not reality', is enough for me to read his work. They probably thought it would be a bad idea to leave a guy like Rosenberg alive. |
|
February 13th, 2011 | #34 | |
Geriatric Coalburner
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
|
I side with Nietzsche, and not Herr Hitler on this one, from Genealogy of Morality:
Quote:
I know there was a real drive to try and do away with the negatives of common German culture, as I'm sure many have seen that line to the Hitler Youth in that speech where Hitler said (paraphrase) 'The Beer Drinker reputation is no more'. And I'm sure on a reasoning level most of the fellow elite could accept doing away with beer drinking, the degenerate film era of what Rosenberg called the three 'heroic' archetypes of the pimp, the prostitute, and the criminal (from his intro to TMOTTC), and other common negative pastimes that came to be identified with German culture, ones that didn't quite fit in with a vision of an Ubermensch society. But then again, I shouldn't make a big deal of this. I don't think any serious pro-vegetarian campaign pushes were made, not to the likes of tobacco and alcohol (which I have seen a few posters about from that era). Last edited by P.E.; February 13th, 2011 at 07:39 PM. |
|
February 13th, 2011 | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
|
If I'm not mistaken Hitler adopted a vegetarian diet in order to reduce his flatulency, which was caused (or aggravated) by meat.
Then again, that could be slander.
__________________
Ceterum censeo, Israelem esse delendam! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncppNE7G5tU "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me; come and take his head."" |
February 13th, 2011 | #36 | |
Geriatric Coalburner
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
|
Quote:
http://aryanism.net/culture/veganism/ I'm not too sure of the accuracy of those Hitler quotes, as I think those were from that "Table Talk" book, which is not official obviously. I don't agree with the position. Even if people were to go along with their 'conquer your "inner Jew" ' philosophy to not look at other animals as Jews look at Goy, then what about overpopulation? Issues with aggressive animals? Animals are going to get killed either way. Regardless, looking past all so-called 'moral' considerations, there is still the fact that vegans look weaker and overall less-healthy than meat eaters. Any ideology which wants to claim that people should lower their overall health for the sake of being 'moral' towards animals is a batshit crazy ideology. Though I will say that I assume part of the reason many modern 'vegans' look unhealthy - from those I've met - is that they tend to eat a lot of processed garbage, and other meat-substitute type foods with tons of preservatives / additives / chemicals, and other junk like soy products. Perhaps there is such a thing as a healthy vegan who eats from natural fresh sources and has stamina and physical fitness / health that is up there with any meat eater. I sure as shit haven't seen it yet. Last edited by P.E.; February 13th, 2011 at 08:16 PM. |
|
February 13th, 2011 | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
|
P.E., I can understand people who choose to be vegetarians for healthy reasons only; but being a vegetarian because killing animals is "cruel" and one doesn't want to partake in it is fucking gay.
Aryans ARE, and always were, CRUEL; and this is something this goat fuck of a thread hasn't even tackled yet. The completely sick mindset that dictates violence and cruelty are "wrong". To truly believe this is madness; it is a sickness. It is sickness turned into sainthood. There is absolutely no reason to feel ashamed of one's own cruelty or lust for violence and killing. That is actually a very natural drive; every man wants it, in some point in their lives. It is called being human. However, with the advent of the sickness called morality, it is now wrong to be strong. "Men must be educated for war..." - Enough said.
__________________
Ceterum censeo, Israelem esse delendam! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncppNE7G5tU "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me; come and take his head."" |
February 13th, 2011 | #38 | |
Geriatric Coalburner
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
|
Quote:
In fact a lot of the 'morality' talk surrounding the Third Reich, and it's whole attempt to sustain 'Christian Europe', is the most miffing point of the whole thing for me. Perhaps a moot point, just as many around here consider it a waste of time to try to shoot down Christianity in any current white movement. For the thinkers like Rosenberg, sure, the NSDAP could get those guys all day. But for the farmer, the worker, the average among the mass that makes up a movement, they never would've gotten off the ground without the endorsing of Christianity. Of course, Nietzsche said that to move forward from something that was once strong, something has to be destroyed. And reading some of Rosenberg's book (I started to dig into it a bit), he was very in line with Nietzsche on this one. It smells to me like Europe had issues letting go of these moral shackles a bit too late, and they paid for it. And since the war ended, they do pay for it, literally, both in money and in restriction of speech (and thought for that matter, as the white dying baby boomer generation doesn't say what they think, and their descendants thought is completely alien, as they think what the Jews have taught them to think from their most malleable years of youth, even to the point of genocidal miscegenation). Of course the same could be said about whites in general. Morality was the cause of the decline of the west, and now the white people of the world are enslaved both in both the physical world and the psychological (barring that 1 or 2% of upper echelon whites who act as nomadic as the Jews). Last edited by P.E.; February 13th, 2011 at 09:31 PM. |
|
February 13th, 2011 | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 860
|
Wiser words never spoken, my friend. How I wish we could see our whole race understanding this! But millennia of sickness don't go away overnight.
__________________
Ceterum censeo, Israelem esse delendam! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncppNE7G5tU "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me; come and take his head."" |
February 14th, 2011 | #40 | |
Wutta maroon!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
|
Quote:
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope. - Bugs |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|