/lit/ - Literature

After a lot of studying the Gathas and genetic history, I am starting to see Zoroaster was a white man, but the steppe warlords rejected his message. As a consequence, Iran neolithic farmers around BMAC complex, who were largely brown and resembled Makrani/Brahui people, accepted his message. The Gathas values a farmer's way of life more than a steppe warlord.
I am starting to see Jesus was a fiction made up by Jews to use as a scapegoat and brainwash white men. Zoroaster's story served as a model for Jews to plagiarize in order to reign in the goy.
Whites, especially Eastern Slavs, were cursed by God for rejecting Zoroaster. Whites are projecting when they say Jews are cursed for killing Jesus who did not exist. The true prophet of the West is Zoroaster. Stuff like black metal is a regression to steppe-like ways.
A single white rebel with a heart of gold civilized the entirety of the Middle East, but whites themselves rejected his message.

>>14489006
>metaphysical dualism
It is absolute.

>>14368880
Because it's nothing but a corrupt imitation of Zarathustra's teachings.

>>14200018
I see. Not utopian then, but ideally preferential for You. For many, be they weak, poorly connected, or just unlucky, fascism would not be advantageous to the exercise of one's will to power. Unless you are implying a kind of reverent submission to the will to power and the differential of power itself, a post-individual affirmation of the will to power which is itself a self-limiting ideology but an interesting position of metaphysical allegiance to take.

Even then however the distinction still to be made is on what grounds one wants this differential of wills to take place. If it is on asymmetrical grounds (the many/molar conquering the molecular and few) then this allegiance is profoundly anti-Nietzschean (the ressentment of the few, the domination of greater forces by the limiting powers of collected lesser forces) and ultimately a protest in ideology only, a laissez-faire fatalism that says let the cards fall where Nature lets them and ends up back here at the present in modern market capitalism.

If instead you seek to elevate the differential to a place of aristocratic nobility and protect the strong from the limiting of the weak then I think you have come through to rejoin both Nietzsche and the post-Left and in your fascism are only disagreeing politically on terms of immanence/opportunism (as you would have it) or ideological self-repression (as I would).

Here is a kind of philosophical explanation:
>1. initially the world was like a celestial sphere of pure Love (φιλότης) or aligned with Ahura Mazda's aṣ̌a
>2. at the edges of this sphere was Strife (νεῖkος) or Ahriman's druj, which infringed upon the #1 out of avarice
>3. this caused an endless conflict between Love and Strife, which is akin to attraction/repulsion and union/separation, or the battle between Spenta and Angra Mainyu, the spirits of Ahura Mazda and Ahriman respectively
>4. To summarize this, good and evil are distinct and irreducible antagonistic properties are in endless conflict, and there is no unity between them in higher-levels of realization. The wise pick the good of the duality. Love > Strife. Ahura Mazda > Ahriman. Spenta Mainyu > Angra Mainyu

The problem with monism is the belief the "light and darkness are two sides of the same coin". No, the point is "light exists to banish the darkness (to the edges) in order to become whole once more".

Such a dualistic view is better than anything from Abrahamic or Dharmic religions.

Empedocles, Mani, and Mazdak promoted vegetarianism, helping others, animal welfare, caring for nature, etc. Zarathustra would probably agree they were Saoshyants. However, Mani was antinatalist while Mazdak and Empedocles were not.

>>13369179
Part 02/02

The idea of a “Day of Judgment” (Hebrew Yohm Ha Din) can be traced to Zoroastrianism’s ‘Frashokereti’, when fire cleanses the world of all evil or defilement, and the belief of the soul reaching paradise can, likewise, be claimed to originate from the Zoroastrian concept “Chinvat Bridge”; a fragment of Qumran caves describes the Day of Judgment as a “bridge of the abyss”, and analogously, Zoroastrians believed in the hereafter, one will come across the Chinvat Bridge guarded by holy dogs. If the person lived a noble life, the bridge will expand and allow them to reach the end, whereby the yazata Daena shall take them up to Ohrmazd’s “House of Song”, but if they lived ignoble lives, it shall contract as narrow as reed as Daena, now a daeva, will pull them into Ahriman’s “House of Lies”. Moreover, the idea of a savior who will lead the world unto light can be traced to the concept the ‘Saoshyant’. Even the word paradise is based off the Avestan pairi daeza. One final note, considering Islam came from Judeo-Christian tradition, there are many indirect Zoroastrian influences on it; the descriptions of paradise as a flowering garden in the Koran descend from Zoroastrian influence, and several yazatas such as Hordād (Av. Haurvatat) and Amurdād (Av. Amərətāt) appear in the Koran.

>>13261987
>infects both the East and West's metaphysics
Nothing personal, kiddo.

>>13126700
Consciousness was a gift, prove ME wrong.

>>13111881
Kinda, except Zoroastrianism is actually based

“Have you ever said Yes to a single joy? O my friends, then you have said Yes too to all woe. All things are entangled, ensnared, enamored; if ever you wanted one thing twice, if ever you said, "You please me, happiness! Abide, moment!" then you wanted all back. All anew, all eternally, all entangled, ensnared, enamored--oh then you loved the world. Eternal ones, love it eternally and evermore; and to woe too, you say: go, but return! For all joy wants--eternity.”

1. Why Zoroaster?
2. Is there any philosopher more motivating/inspirational without fully delving into self-help type shit than Nietzsche?