/lit/ - Literature

>>14574691

>1. Nietzsche uses the word cruelty to mean different things?
Yes, Modern western/Christian's are cruel and sadistic in that their raison d'etre is enjoyment of self-torture and pleasure at the eventual torture of others who are not quite as tortured. However, powerful aristocrats were cruel only by incident and didnt place value on cruelty itself. Cruelty sustained them but they were simply focused on their own strength and happiness. It's the difference of cruelty via sadism vs cruelty via apathy.

>2. Nietzsche was a loser so he came up with his theories to make himself be on top
Well, that is precisely what he says everyone does. Everyone creates a moral viewpoint to justify themselves. The only difference between master and slave morality is that slaves are jealous of the masters and create a morality based on hatred where masters think they are so amazing so anything that they are is good. This also seems to imply Niezsche was a homeless bum or something and not a successful professor and renown author during his life.

>2.5 is charlemagne slave morality?
Yes and no. It's not like one is all one or the other. Everyone has a bit of both. Charldmagne's conquesting was very non-Christian and very much master morality while also confessing his sins and saying sorry to god for existing. But obviously the christian rot spread through the european mind through the ages and over time to the point now that we can even justify our own existence as a people without being.

>3. But what about Evols
Christ imagine referencing Evola and Guenon with a straight face. Those thinkers are basically trying to establish a theoretical framework for the supremacy of the priestly class and putting themselves at the head. They have not proven anything except to point to a bunch of points in history where the priestly class tried to pull their tricks. This is why Germanic paganism was the most superior religion: there were no priests just the dude who bought the beer acted as priest.