/lit/ - Literature

>>23022785
>let me uhh, club together a bunch of losers to tear down the "evil oppressor"
>it's not ressentiment because it's literally ressentiment
just say you don't agree with Nietzsche, no need to pretend he agrees with your vile and deceitful slave moralizing

>>23023031
This desu

>>23023031
>just say you don't agree with Nietzsche
This makes too much sense

>>23023031
you're a dumb nigger. Caesar was a slave moralist per your definition since he rallied against the wealthy of Rome yet Nietzsche and everyone else who ever touched this subject repeatedly counts him among the Great Men.

>>23023031
Is Nietzscheanism really the view that power is always justified and there are never any oppressors and no times when powerless "losers" could revolt against them in any dignified way and that any attempt to do so means you're weak and pathetic. So you should just accept all power and never revolt so you're not "resentful". kek. Teenager shit.

>>23023106
Not entirely, but if you adopt the Nietzschean method it's rather easy to dismiss almost every grievance people might have as resentment. It's why sophists of all stripes love Nietzsche.

>>23023068
>Caesar was a slave moralist
Yes, that's why he won.

>>23023314
Nietzsche was just an angry ranter and not a philosopher. Doesn't hold a candle to real philosophers such as Kant.

>>23023031
This post really proves Nietzsche is just the poor man's Stirner

>>23022785
>Suppose I was
You weren't, you aren't, and you never would be
You're a petty friendless wanker so scared of others that you can't even admit it to yourself, and so you have to bother anonymous strangers to try to get them to read your diary, even though it's nothing lies you tell yourself to fall asleep at night. In a rented room, alone, a sad, pathetic loser

>>23023068
>>23023321
Caesar wasn't motivated by ethnic hatred or some other herd-derived grievance like OP is getting at, where you are distressed by your own weakness when faced with strength and label your lack of power good and the other's potency evil, he kicked over a degenerate institution that quite literally did not survive him. Push what is falling. Try reading the authors being talked about.
>>23023106
>>23023314
I would consider "no revolt is justified" a bad reading, because if you follow the thinking here more closely the problem is moral and volitional more than literally about physical sttength or political control. If we return to the "ethnic hatred vs oppressor" example, this is just a secular reboot of Christianity (Nietzsche is not the only person to call out the -ism's for being religion replacements), and it depends on how you are framing your conflict. If the opponent is "evil" for being stronger than you as opposed to merely "bad" for causing you harm, it introduces the subtle poison that it is virtuous to be pathetic, which is perhaps suitable as a noble lie for a priest to tell his flock, but this is repulsive to Nietzsche per his valuation. So if you are actually going to overthrow this oppressor, in a way, if you can do it he deserves it, but if you do it the wrong way you run the risk of being beholden to the sickly moralizing you've cultivated, having based your power on the power of a suffering slave and not a potent nobility.
>>23023335
The Chinaman of Koenigsberg made Nietzsche possible. If you know, you know.
>>23023443
Haven't gotten to Stirner yet

>>23023335
He never considered himself a philosopher. He called himself a "psychologists".

>>23023534
Psychologist*

>>23023521
Blacks never say whites are evil because they're powerful, they say whites are evil because they use their power to harm blacks. And no the "ethnic hatred vs oppressor" narrative has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with a low IQ savage people being conquered and colonised by a technologically superior, more educated, more mentally refined race and then developing an inferiority complex. What has Christianity got to do with "oppressors"? It's about freeing one's soul from the shackles of psychological guilt by appealing to an infinitely merciful God and thereby being able to live right. Who is the "oppressor" in this context? Sin?

*goes insane because he realizes he was wrong about spending his entire life railing against Christianity*

only thing more cringe is that people pay tens of thousands of dollars to study this guy's opinions

>>23023568
>christkek didn't do the reading
>is also a racist despite following a universalist religion that converted those very same black people and made them what they are
no surprise there
>>23023572
not as cringe as paying to study schizophrenia at "divinity school"

>>23023595
Answer my questions you goblin. What is the "oppressor" in Christian mythology? There isn't one. You're trying to ascribe a very natural psychological reaction on the part of the coloured races (simple inferiority complex for having less achievements and being conquered) to a religion which has nothing to do with it.

>>23023616
>What is the "oppressor" in Christian mythology?
The Roman empire

>>23023638
Nah, it's Satan and man's inherit slavery to sin — to desire, circumstance, and instinct.

>>23023675
I'm not going to read Nietzsche to you. If your best response to what you haven't read is to spit catechism at me you might as well be a chinese room. But since you admit an evil power behind everything "wrong" you are effectively agreeing with Nietzsche, just adding "and that's a good thing."

>>23023638
This is retarded. If Christian spirituality were in any way linked with the existence of the Roman Empire then Christianity would have disappeared with it. Clearly Christianity's core spiritual message transcends this particular historical context because the Roman Empire died and Christianity lived on. So what is the "oppressor" in the core message of Christianity, which is fundamentally about recognising one's own sinfulness and seeking restoration from a merciful God? There isn't one.

As far as the Roman Empire goes, it is not portrayed as responsible for the death of Jesus Christ in the gospels. Pilate attempts to save Christ but the Jews won't have it so he washes his hands of the blood. Later on the Roman Empire genuinely does start persecuting Christians, it becomes a genuinely oppressive tyrannical force. That is in no way comparable with black ethnic hatred for whites which invents an oppression narrative where there is no true oppression or tyranny.

Dropping this here.

>>23018081
>>23018085

Problem ?

That's hypothetically possible. There's a reason Nietzsche uses a French term borrowed from the moralists: it's meant to indicate a specific technical concept in his moral psychology as opposed to the general emotion of resentment. Ressentiment is when resentment becomes psychologically internalized to a point where it becomes the basis for a morality that precludes the seizure and exercise or power. You can see the influence of ressentiment-based morality even in those who already possess power or privilege in e.g., the French nobility that voluntarily gave up their privileges in 1789 or modern white guilt.
Nietzsche's strong opposition to ressentiment has to do with the fact that in this form, resentment inhibits the will to power by giving it imaginary satisfaction through the purely mental act of judgment. You probably know people in your life who are like that.
It should be stated, though, that in actual fact if you champion a resentful group of people to acquire power, that resentful group of people will probably not actually ever exercise any real power: only the "vanguard" will. This is because of Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy. It is clear from history that Caesar championing the plebs did not put the plebs as a class in power, it just ended up putting Caesar's political allies in power; likewise with the proletariat and the party apparatus in communist revolutions.

>>23023568
>>23023616
>>23023696
Christianity instills the psychological guilt in the first place. Oppressors under Christian doctrine are those who have ability and power and don't participate in psychological guilt.

>>23023696
Rome still represents Aryan ascendancy which christianity is singularly aimed at curtailing.

>>23023696
Christlarper apologists really aren't sending their best... just consider how a mainline Protestant or a Catholic would respond to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity as a base resentment of power, an engine of spite—they would affirm it! The Gospel is the preferential option for the poor. How can you refute someone who has described you so accurately? His only error, then, is in rejecting this. You on the other hand are a white supremist dressed up as a member of a BIPOC majority religion, trying to explain away why it has become what it was destined for... why?

>>23023723
You could argue Christianity "instils guilt" because of its strict moral code but it just as equally finds a way to get rid of that guilt by conceiving of God as an infinitely merciful father who wants the best for his sons and will receive them back into his household if they repent as in the parable of the prodigal son. But regarding the stuff about "people who have ability and power but don't feel guilt are oppressors" --- that is just totally made up by you with no basis in Scripture or Christian thinking.

>>23023687
I've read almost everything Nietzsche ever published. That was my only post in this thread and it doesn't reveal any opinion re Nietzsche. I was just pointing out that in mainline orthodox Christian thinking the biggest oppressor of man is man himself. Sentiments like Saint Augustine's "a slave who is a good man might live free, while a rich man who is wicked has as many masters as he has vices." In Christianity, you are your own worst oppressor, see Romans 7 and Paul's meditations on being "at war with the members of [his] body," and "dead in sin."

It's only divine Logos that sets one free and resurrects one to personhood, and in this the Platonic influences are clear even in the Canon (Stoicism as well).

>>23023731
I swear I've seen this post ten times.

>>23023736
>totally made up by you with no basis in Scripture or Christian thinking
it's called not accepting your reading of history and religion as authoritative, and by the way watch it with accusing others' values of being "totally made up," since you aren't about to prove your specific Christian-sectarian God exists or work a miracle

>>23023616
The fact that there is no specific oppressor in Christian mythology does not contradict Nietzsche's thesis. The thesis is that such mythologies are sublimations of ressentiment that simulate a feeling of power without being the real thing. So it is entirely consistent that thesis the really powerful entity is Christ.
Nietzsche's rough story in the Genealogy of Morals is that the oppressor(s) who this mythology was originally directed against were of course the oppressors of the Jews, whether the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, or Romans. But with Christianity the mythology takes a universalist character and can be adopted against whatever oppressor the Christian pleases to condemn. Thus the Jewish ressentiment became unchained to historical particularities.

>>23023737
>That was my only post in this thread and it doesn't reveal any opinion re Nietzsche
sure it does, you said people are inherently enslaved to sin and controlled by Evil Incarnate unless they convert to your religion, this more or less the very concept of slave morality given by Nietzsche, that one develops a sense that evil lurks behind their pain or inadequacy, Christianity promises to cure you of a disease it gave you

>>23023753
No, Nietzsche believed Jews were oppressed in their homeland in India where they constituted the Dalit class.

>>23023731
Christianity says nothing about resenting power. Cite your sources or stop talking shit. How could the Popes have declared crusades and have adorned themselves with kingly paraphernalia and servants and a whole army in the Papal States if they thought power was evil. This is what the New Testament says about the rulers:

>Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will [a]bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

There is not a hint of "resentment against power" there you mongoloid.

>the poor
Yes Christians are commanded to give alms and take care of the poor. What's your point.

>>23023780
Lol

>>23023521
good post. team 'nietzschean ethics is a brand of virtue ethics' gang

>>23023783
It's complete bullshit but he had read it in some French book.

>>23023753
If there is no concrete oppressor in Christianity and yet you claim that there is an abstract concept of an oppressor which "can be adopted against whatever oppressor the Christian pleases to condemn" then please cite where the hell you see this abstract form of oppressor in Christian theology.

>>23023789
I always figured the Chandala thing is just a figure of speech because it's when one parent is a born in Sudra and one parent is Brahmin, and Jewish people are like a hybrid of the two castes

Discussions about resentment must be the most midwit thing ever. You can never prove or disprove resentment-allegations and people can't come to an agreement as to the meaning of the term.

>>23023781
>How could the Popes have declared crusades and have adorned themselves with kingly paraphernalia and servants and a whole army in the Papal States if they thought power was evil
thats about a thousand years out of context from the roots of Christianity, roots which are far deeper than the Middle Ages and which continue to bear their original fruit long after the last Frank left Acre
>>23023794
Why do you need to cite theology to talk about the historical context in which Christianity was developed and popularized in the Roman empire? It's obvious you can't respond without going "muh degenerate popes" or "muh scripture;" does Christianity not promise the weak that they will triumph over stronger evil people? How is this to be accomplished? By dying? Certainly the martyr cults thought so, however embarassing this may be to you.

>>23023802
You'd be wrong, he meant it literally. The theory was invented/popularized by Louis Jacolliot.

>>23023789
>>23023802
>>23023822
He had bad sources on ethnographic stuff like most people at the time but it is somewhat accurate albeit mean to liken the hellenized (as distinct from actual Hellenic) lower class urban populations of the eastern portions of the roman empire to a chandala caste, they are a mish-mashed mixture of various peoples having passed through the region who have served under Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, and now Romans. If we think about the gap temporally and culturally between biblical Israel/Judaea and the Hasmonean state it is a pretty tremendous period of subjugation, similar for the neighboring populations as well, long bereft of independence

>>23023869
He didn't do this though. He literally wrote they came from India.

>>23023728
>Rome still represents Aryan ascendancy
No, it doesn't. Stop claiming Romans if you're a filthy Germ. They shouldn't be part of your anachronistic pseudonazi games.

>>23023890
yeah people thought that and still do, that that jews were like brahmins or brahmins were like jews; similarity can quickly become sameness in a game of telephone, the identification itself was even made in classical sources, see Bar-Kochva's The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature for more than you actually want to know on the subject

>>23023794
The sin of pride. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment, and Matthew 25:45 blends the first and second greatest commandments. But in the terms of the second greatest commandment, pride is love of self above the love of one's neighbor. Action in accordance with pride, when de-sublimated from the mythological and theological context, and confined to the social context, is an assertion of superiority: oppression.
It must be taken for granted to accept this account that Christian theology is a sublimation of these secular psychological tendencies with a heavy dose of self-deception. The Christian attitude is the reverse: that grace and sin are real, and pride and oppressive behavior are a manifestation of these. The fact that worldly pride can be forgiven by spiritual humility through Grace in the mythology does not challenge the consistency of the Nietzschean interpretation of that theology.
Ultimately there is really just an either/or interpretive decision: psychological reductionism or theological reductionism. I doubt that the grounds for that decision are rational.

>>23023616
>>23023723
>>23023736
>>23023753
Stop focusing so much on specific Christian scripture and mythology. If I tell any Christian the tale of a man who became the happiest person in the world making a billion dollars by burning down several cities, killing the inhabitants and looting the homes, they will consider him an oppressive, immoral and downright evil person, and claim there's something wrong with him.

>>23023821
I just cited you a quote from Saint Paul which completely demolishes your made up argument that Christianity (even in its early stages) in any way was a "resentment against power". In that quote which you conveniently ignored, Saint Paul literally states the opposite; ie. he commands the Christians not to resent or disobey the legitimate authorities and declares that those authorities were established by God. Not only that, but there are multiple passages in which Saint Paul declares the Christian struggle to be a spiritual struggle against sin and not a political and social struggle against the powers that be. Contrary to what you say, I am in no way embarrassed about the existence of Christian martyrs, who though outnumbered and persecuted by a tyrannical regime would rather have gone to their death than to abandon their faith. I am not impressed by the Nietzschean solution to the problem the early Christians were facing -- which would have been to abandon their faith and join the "winning side" just because it was more powerful at the time. In fact, I consider that the pit of cowardice. Finally, I can do nothing but laugh at your frankly puerile interpretation of the Christian doctrine based on a narrow-minded and selective reading of the tradition, according to which the Christian doctrine apparently reduces to a childish desire to triumph over the nebulous "strong". I consider your whole Nietzschean creed to be a pseudointellectual cesspit, founded by a deranged ranter passing as a "philosopher" yet incapable of systematic rational thought, perpetuated by teenagers and soulless atheists, and which has left a putrid stain on the field of philosophy.

>>23023931
There are some similarities between Levites and Brahmins I think but that's the highest caste in India so Nietzsche's model doesn't make sense.

>>23023945
Yes because theft and murder are immoral dickhead. That has nothing to do with hating le strong. Fuck off

>>23023956
Immoral according to life-hating guilt-tripping kike doctrine

If someone kills your family and torches your home and you get angry that's resentment you see.

>>23023946
Holy BASED

>>23023946
Why do you think scripture speaks louder than the veneration of martyrs as to what went on during the early days of Christianity? Because you want to ignore it? As for deranged ranting, glossolalia was also quite popular—although yoy might call it tongues of fire or the Holy Spirit. Nietzsche was quite coherent prior to falling ill. Were the Christians then ill from the start? Was he right, have you made sickness a virtue, slavery a power?

>>23023963
Venture into the real world stealing and killing and tell me how it goes. It's illegal in all of the world for a reason, retard. And has nothing to do with Christianity but basic human ethics.

>>23023965
If someone kills your family and torches your home and you get angry and sit around saying the killer will burn in hell while being too weak to do anything about it* that's resentment you see.

>>23023950
The oldest linkage of the two is describing the brahmins like Jews, that India has an ethnic group who are all priests just like those people in Syria, this is what Greek writers reported during their translation party with Persians who knew both Greek and Indian language. Nietzsche and his sources are repeating a garbled version of that—now they are chandala instead of brahmins, it is replacing the exodus from Egypt with a wandering from India, not impossible since gypsies did that, but almost certainly wrong in this case

>>23023983
Nice headcanon, but 99% of people who lose their families will just be grief-stricken even if they manage to get revenge. Life isn't like your computer games.

>>23023997
being emotionally upset is a standard response, being resentful is when you can't do anything about your emotional harm

>>23023963
It's natural law retard. Every civilised nation has laws against this type of behaviour. This is what Christians call the wisdom of the pagans --- they know the moral law because God has written it on the human heart, although they have an imperfect relationship with God

>>23024002
You will never have a family so you wouldn't understand it (just like Nietzsche).

>>23023963
>if you don't like murdering and stealing you're against life
Cool, thanks for confirming you're 15 like all Nietzsfhe fans

>ressentiment is being upset your family was murdered
it's not, this a really shitty attempt to derail and make the terminology used seem ridiculous, and it also comes after a long string of ineffective posts by Christian apologists

>>23023968
You clearly didn't read my post. Do you propose that the "based" and "life-affirming" thing for the early Christians to do was to abandon their faith when they were being persecuted and join the anti-Christians because, at that moment, the anti-Christians were more powerful than the Christians? Is Nietzscheanism about being a little weasel with no principles and just sucking up to whoever happens to be in charge?

>>23024003
>>23023981
>""""natural""" law
>""""basic""" human ethics
that didn't exist until it was invented by kikes and Zoroastrians

>>23024028
Weird you'd say that because the Nietzschean started talking about wanton mass murder first (>>23023945).

he literally went insane realizing he was wrong about Christianity

>>23024028
Nietzscheans in this thread are arguing that anyone who says a man shouldn't go around mass murdering in order to gain billions is a life denying kike full of ressentiment. That's your own people my friend.

>>23024031
>abandon their faith when they were being persecuted and join the anti-Christians
the Christians already abandoned their faiths, Judaism early on but increasingly pagan religions for the later pools of converts
also it sounds like you favor suicide by cop after all, how curious that this was denied as essential to early Christianity repeatedly prior to this post—now you are a coward for not spiting the Roman empire?

>>23024032
It did exist prior to Christian influence. Thieves and murderers were punished by local authorities in ancient times.

>>23024034
that's a pretty stupid post sure but that doesn't mean it wasn't a donation of constantine style tactic

>>23024034
>>23024013
Do you realize that every single nation on earth practices mass killing and enslavement on a grand scale. What do you think prisons and wars are? And have you noticed life has only gotten better as a result? This isn't some edgy opinion. Humans made it to the moon because wars needed information (flight, dating back to the air balloon), and London needed to burn (V-2 rocket)

>>23024028
>what is reductio ad absurdum

>>23024057
It's not suicide. They didn't want to die. They just refused to abandon their faith and so they were killed. That's why they're honoured. I know you have no concept of loyalty.

>>23024070
>They didn't want to die.
How do you know? Heaven is better than earth, God is greater than man, and the martyrs are received by Christ. Probably a good amount of them went willingly to their deaths.

>>23024065
War can be justified. In Christian theology its called just war theory. That's not the same as aggressively declaring war for purely imperialistic or self interested ends.

>>23024065
Your argument was so retarded you now resort to telling us that wars happen regardless, and that they are sometimes accompanied by technological innovation. Everyone already knows this.

>>23024079
Suicide is a sin in Christianity, fuxk off, you're 13

>All that talk about power and will
>Can't even save a horse
lol
lmao even

>>23024032
Yes it did retard.
Learn about Buddhism
Learn about Hinduism
Read Greek philosophy
There is a universal morality imprinted on the human heart. That's why there is such a thing as Calvin called "the wisdom of the Pagans". It's not invented by Christianity, although Christianigy is the highest moral expression.

>>23024082
>>23024081
>murder, theft bad
>war can be justified, and brings on technological progress
truly I have hit upon the pinnacle of christnigger contradiction

>>23024105
Your tiny brain turned the incidental technological innovation that tends to happen in wartime into a justification of war apparently.

>>23024085
it's suicide because there is no skydaddy, time to grow up
>>23024086
i would weep to this horse

>>23024120
>>23024120
Shouldn't have lumped you in with the other poster. But let me reiterate: hating life means hating dominance, killing, war, progress etc; Christians hate it because they are too incapable to participate successfully. They jerk themselves off with guilt and power fantasies as a substitute for living. Previously this was done in churches, today there's a million things to consoom and feel guilty about.

>>23024170
I think you underestimate how little those recent European wars resembled the kind of warfare that would result from true amoralism. Think about it: Germans lost two world wars but they're perfectly fine nowadays. No one genocided or enslaved them.

>>23024305
Soviet soldiers raping every German female they could see after defeating Germany in WW2 was slave morality or master morality?

>>23024318
I don't know but the point is neither the Americans nor the Russians exterminated or enslaved entire European peoples. So I appreciate that they weren't amoralist Nietzscheans in their victories.

Why is it that when faced with atheism e-christian apologists immediately think about murdering and raping whoever they can lay hands on? Is sectarian theology your only reason not to do those things? It's really rather repulsive.

>>23024381
Read: >>23024034

>>23022785
Read Ressentiment by Scheler

>>23022785
>I still don't understand why resentment is inherently a bad thing.
I think your confusion lies in the fact that Nietzsche never "grounded" his philosophy and therefore there is no measure validating his value judgments. The ground cannot be the will to power because the will to power is operational both in life-affirming values as well as in the ressentiment of slave morality. Evola believed Nietzsche grounded his philosophy in the eternal return, but I don't think it's that simple. A key point for Nietzsche, that also correlates directly with his idea of "value creation," is doing away with any and all "grounds." But he also recognizes that some sort of ground is necessary for functional human existence. So, in dealing with these opposing perspectives, he believes that out of the age of nihilism (groundlessness par excellence), there will emerge a creative people who will define the scale of values and exist in itself as the ground for future humanity: the Übermensch. In other words, the precondition for the emergence of the Übermensch is groundlessness: the completely free Dionysian spirit that allows for the creation of new values. Ultimately, Nietzsche assumes that amongst the struggle of powers, Nature will select the Übermensch, that the life-affirming values reflected in Nietzsche's work accurately reflect the reality of Nature. This is also why Nietzsche said that if the Jews "want to win," they essentially need to mix with the best of Europe, to rid them of blood that is fundamentally "anti-nature."

>>23022785
>I use their ethnic hatred to pursue my own ends, become a great political leader of my people and seize power from those who oppressed and subjugated us.
Thant makes you no different from the Jews desu

>>23022785
>'moral superiority' /=/ feeling of power [superiority in fact and deed]

The crude psychopath will just do violence to you, the subtle resentment fueled on will contrive protracted torture through surreptitious means and will go to any lengths and mental gymnastics to argue that you deserve it.

>>23022785
>I grow up hating
Oops! Looks like you're not a great man.

>>23024482
This. I rarely ever see it mentioned.

>>23023811
Don't be such a salty bitch.

>>23023811
We can agree on the term and the allegations, that'a simple enough. It's mostly just christfags being in yet another denial and refusing to accept it as being at the core of their beliefs

>>23024950
>yeah, but if you kill the people who are trying to kill you, then you're no better than them!
Breathtaking insight, now get in the fucking oven.

>>23025480
No, I mean that you literally acquire and embody the Jewish spirit by doing so. A motive can be just as important as the action

>>23025497
No, I mean that you're actually mentally retarded, and should throw yourself in the nearest oven immediately.

>>23024105
Are Nietzscheans not smart enough to understand that ethics varies by situation? In a time of war killing can be justified if you are a soldier fighting other combatants. Doesn’t mean killing is always justified. This is a contradiction only in your small brain.

>>23024065
The world wars might have sped up technological progress but it would have happened anyway. The true catalyst was the Industrial Revolution which completely transformed the world and was done in peaceful circumstances. Since then technology has been progressing at a rate unheard of for thousands of years. Anyway your evaluation of what’s “better” and what’s “worse” doesn’t make sense from a Nietzschean amoralist perspective. Things just are.

>>23025729
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been disastrous for the human race.

>>23022785
The slave who resents his master and his actions isn't taking advantage of the paths to power available to him. The master can be the worst kind of sadist, rapist etc but the principle still holds. Resentment doesn't help your position, knowing your enemy does and resentment disrupts that like by leading to not wanting to relate to the perspective of the master.
When you finally can defeat the enemy it should hurt because you love him, he earned that love because you needed to grow around him to defeat him. The healthy noble spirit respects power and wants to learn from those that wield it. The resentful pleb makes excuses about how the powerful were just lucky etc, he doesn't try to relate to the power he has access to sincerely.

>>23025837
I will take the OSCpill and Endermaxx

>>23023521
>Chinaman of Koenigsberg made Nietzsche possible. If you know, you know.
Why do bapkiddies treat caribbean rhythms like some secret club? I'd honestly prefer if they were just normal zionists at this point, the whole gay mishima bodybuilder Nietzsche cosmopolitan aristocracy thing has gotten dry after 3 years.

>>23023031
>>let me uhh, club together a bunch of losers
Let me stop you right there. Let me impose my will to power and
>to tear down the "evil oppressor"
- evil doesn't exist - resent the person who I deem unworthy and take by force from them what belongs to the overman.
>>it's not ressentiment because it's literally ressentiment
Yes.
>just say you don't agree with Nietzsche
He didn't go far enough. He cucked out. You didn't read the Christians either because they were the first and say even more strongly muh resentment and muh envy bad
>your vile and deceitful
Moralizing words.

I will continue to resent people. I will continue to envy them. One day, people like you will be subjugated. You have no resentment or envy in you from your moral perfection so you'll make a good slave.

Nietzche is to 4chan what Hegel and Ludwig Freubach were to Marx. Incomplete and needed their errors corrected. You're simply a brainlet and your own post proves it.

>>23022785

The only "resentment" is the proactive resentment of "the strong", i.e. criminals, and that is why they are criminals. The only way to "transcend resentment" is to kill them all.

>>23025729
> Anyway your evaluation of what’s “better” and what’s “worse” doesn’t make sense from a Nietzschean amoralist perspective. Things just are.
Nietzsche isn't a nihilist. His entire schtick is that we can make assessments of better and worse without resorting to moralniggotry

Obviously war isn't the only thing that assists in development, although europe was embroiled in non stop wars for hundreds of year and the the industrial revolution took place during the napoleonic wars/french revolution - a time of massive upheaval. Beyond this, the point isn't that war = unanimous good, it's just that war, killing, conflict, etc isn't a unanimous bad, as christians would have you believe.

>>23025683
Ah yes, the famous christian commandment of
>thou shalt not kill except when the times call for it and let's be flexible here, ethics really vary by situation. you can probably steal too, if you're poor enough

>>23026792
>kill
From context a capable reader can understand that this means murder humans, the word is translated and words can mean different things depending on context.
A strict legalistic interpretation of "kill" would include animals which is inconsistent with the context.
According to Christ these are guidelines representing an underlying order. When asked which is most important he summarizes the underlying order with the golden rule.
He also says you have no chance of following that order perfectly, the ideal is something to approach not reach. You will compromise, you're already compromised.

>>23026906
Ah, of course, If I just kill a couple guys, it's not so bad! Totally within christian guidelines. Sadly, I couldn't not attain the ideal.

>>23026144
What does this have to do with eceleb grifters on xwitter? I'm saying you didn't read, and you didn't. Lo and behold you are here to talk about /pol/ slop
>>23026373
>One day, people like you will be subjugated.
I'll take your performative hostility as confirmation I am correct about something.
>>23025683
>ethics varies by situation
That's not very Christian of you, to apply different moralities to different groups of people

>>23022785
>I still don't understand why resentment is inherently a bad thing
"The spirit of revenge: my friends, that hath hitherto been man’s best contemplation; and where there was suffering, it was claimed there was always penalty.
“Penalty,” so calleth itself revenge. With a lying word it feigneth a good conscience.
And because in the willer himself there is suffering, because he cannot will backwards—thus was Willing itself, and all life, claimed—to be penalty!
And then did cloud after cloud roll over the spirit, until at last madness preached: “Everything perisheth, therefore everything deserveth to perish!”
“And this itself is justice, the law of time—that he must devour his children:” thus did madness preach.
“Morally are things ordered according to justice and penalty. Oh, where is there deliverance from the flux of things and from the ‘existence’ of penalty?” Thus did madness preach.
“Can there be deliverance when there is eternal justice? Alas, unrollable is the stone, ‘It was’: eternal must also be all penalties!” Thus did madness preach.
“No deed can be annihilated: how could it be undone by the penalty! This, this is what is eternal in the ‘existence’ of penalty, that existence also must be eternally recurring deed and guilt!
Unless the Will should at last deliver itself, and Willing become non-Willing—:” but ye know, my brethren, this fabulous song of madness!"

"Like a boil is the evil deed: it itcheth and irritateth and breaketh forth—it speaketh honourably.
“Behold, I am disease,” saith the evil deed: that is its honourableness.
But like infection is the petty thought: it creepeth and hideth, and wanteth to be nowhere—until the whole body is decayed and withered by the petty infection."

>>23026925
You're worse than the guy who killed 1 guy, further from the ideal. Which guy do you want to be?

nietzsche, despite shitting on socrates, agrees with the platonic notion that it is bad to not be in control of your emotions because it leaves you to be a slave to your passions and not live the good life. for nietzsche the good life is a life in which you are able to hone your will toward your chosen ends

>>23026792
>>23026977
Wow, I guess Nietzscheans really are too stupid to understand basic moral distinctions. Yes, killing is not absolutely prohibited. It depends on the situation. Here, a quote from Pius X:
>It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one's own life against an unjust aggressor.
I hope you slow tards can understand it. I know it's highly complex stuff.

>>23026792
>it's just that war, killing, conflict, etc isn't a unanimous bad, as christians would have you believe.
Good thing that Christians haven't ever believed that then isn't it you fucking mongoloid.

It's exhausting dealing with you people.

Read this wikipedia page please:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

Just war theory was developed by Christians. Christians engaged in war. We fought 4 Crusades. Stop being fucking retarded.

>>23027100
Actually there were 8 major crusades. my bad.

>>23027086
The name of the demon in the gospels was... Legion. The Roman army, which wages war against the nation of Israel, that is evil in your scriptures. Not a just war I am sure! The just war became suicide by Roman cop, the only means of resistance accepted by the Christians, who broke from the militant response favored by the other Jews

>>23027110
I'm convinced you're trolling at this point. It isn't possible to be this stupid is it. There is no way you believe that a tiny religious community of Christians should have taken on the Roman empire alone. And then when I point out Christians fought wars later when they became powerful you'll say
>oh but that wasnt muh real Christianity

>>23027123
It's as if you are incapable of accepting the origins of a thing, origins which Christianity has now returned to as all things do. There is no bumper crop of blonde beasts to transform it like in the middle ages, you are chasing after a mirage. It has returned to being sick and broken and there is no clear case to for rescuing something so committed to being unwell.

>>23022785
I agree with OP - it is time to take down the bankers who are enslaving the world

>>23027146
You've already been refuted on the origins. There was no "suicide by cop". It was never "sick and broken". It was never "against strength" or "resentful" or any of that retarded shit. Your argumentative strategy is just to disallow any examples that go against your stupid caricature. Christians fought crusades? Oh that wasn't true Christianity, you're not allowed to cite that! Your only argument is that Christians are "weak" for not defeating the Roman empire military when they were a small persecuted minority. You're fucking retarded. Go defeat the US State Department with your fellow Nietzschean warriors if you're so tough, show us what the Christians should have done.

>>23027218
>Your argumentative strategy is just to disallow any examples that go against your stupid caricature. Christians fought crusades? Oh that wasn't true Christianity
Right, the crusades were fought by medieval Norman and German nobility from northern Europe against the Arabs, Turks, etc., it has very little to do with the context of early Christianity or the origins of Christianity. It is completely ahistorical, schizo, and retarded to suggest the crusades are evidence that early Christianity never existed. You are a pathetic larper and no church west of the Urals is going to endorse your ideology of white supremist christlarpery (even the Russians consider themselves to be fighting racism and white supremacy).

>>23022785
Resentment is bad in that it limits the possibilities for an optimal future by injecting the wounds of the past into the present moment.
That's all.
As an abstract principle, it stands to reason. Life, however, is complicated and doesn't always stand to reason.
I doubt Nietzsche didn't have sympathy for people's resentments or sought to gaslit them about why they were resentful; more so he was saying, you can have all the valid reasons in the world, it'd be better though if we scrapped it and focused on improving the future.

>>23022785
resenttiment isnt just taking revenge. its when you consider the qualities that led to your oppression (your weakness, inability to be in control, etc) as actually being GOOD qualities. You thus hold your commonness and weakness as a sign of moral superiority

>>23022785
Ignore most retards in this thread who have never read Nietzsche. Nietzsche would 100% agree with you OP.

>>23027306
Not really.
He did state that this ressentiment can be used as a galvanizing force for a will to power, but insofar as it's a will to power backed by resentment, the expression of it is overall too vengeful and a net bad for the world.
This was literally his basis for the slave revolt in morals.

>>23027100
>>23027086

>be christfag
>war is bad and evil, killing is bad and evil, you can't just go to war, kill, rape, pillage, etc.
>hold on, let me just say that it's a "just" war first
>alright, we're good to go!
The best part about "just war" is that it brings us back to the topic of the thread. "just war" is resentment par excellence; a christnigger will never wage war himself, because starting war is evil and unjust. But as soon as he is attacked, suddenly he is free to lash out in full unbridled resentment against his evil warlike oppressors.

The problem is ultimately the retarded, extremely jewish mental acrobatics.

>>23027480
you know what's even funnier, the Romans and the Persians and others relying on divination to decide when they can or should give battle—since there is no arguing with bad entrails you might actually be restrained from violence every so often, but "just war" is merely an exercise in clarifying the causus belli; are there any historical situations where a Christian prince submitted a proposal to wage war to his confessor and was turned down for theological reasons? Off hand I can only recall the opposite, popes and bishops and even priests authorizing violence against other Christians, against infidels, etc., like the crusades, or the pope sanctioning the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, late antiquity examples of attacks on pagan temples or worship sites. What would an unjust war even look like—perhaps aiding an infidel against a believer? Isn't that just... keeping kosher? It is less violent to rely on chance to mediate aggression than "reason."

>>23027480
You don't have to resent someone to oppose their actions, it only hurts your ability to.

The man of resentment is a manchild. He did not learn during childhood how to get his own needs met, and was doted on too often, and grew up expecting others would serve him. Then, one day, he was faced with rejection — because his early childhood education was insufficient for survival in the world — and this is where his resentment stems from. Resentment is the result of being a spoiled brat.

>>23028108
That's incredibly reductive. Many sufferers of extreme childhood abuse and rape go through a period of resentment.
Spoiled fuckin brats amirite?

>>23028147
>Spoiled fuckin brats amirite?
Yes. Underpinning their resentment is a childish superiority complex that says: "I am above necessity and nature." Such individuals never want to hear this because it infringes on said superiority complex. People who were abused in childhood are very often terrible people as adults.

>>23028147
>>23028258
By the way, by "terrible," I mean that they have no sense for what a healthy boundary is like. This is what makes them manchildren and womanchildren. Without the development of healthy boundaries, our emotions never evolve beyond childhood / adolescence.

It is natural to feel resentment after one's boundaries have been trampled on, especially before one has had the chance to become familiar with said boundaries. It is valid for a child of abuse to feel resentful. However, resentment remains the byproduct of emotional underdevelopment due to poor boundaries. The resentful person is indeed a spoiled brat in the sense that they demand that nature and society work in a way that they simply do not. It is in the fact that nature and society do not bend to the resentful person's will that makes the person resentful.

>>23023068
> Caesar was a slave moralist per your definition since he rallied against the wealthy of Rome
meme revisionism pushed by faggots

The conflict between the optimates and the populares was about Roman tradition and laws versus the will of popular assemblies.
Trying to present it as "le rich vs le poor" is inserting modern day political discourse. Caesar himself was super rich and came from one of the most aristocratic families in Rome.

>>23028258
What underpins a complex where when faced with the resentment based reactions of others to their own pain, you choose to look down upon them rather than understand and empathize?
What were you saying about superiority complexes?

>>23028313
It is not a complex, but wisdom, that informs me that the person of resentment is emotionally underdeveloped in comparison to myself and other non-resentful adults and suffering from a superiority complex.

>>23022785
Resentment is bad when it is done by the inferior. Otherwise Achaeans and later Greeks and Achilleus and Alexander were all resentful subhumans with this type of reasoning. But they weren't and Nietzsche wasn't dumb enough to say it
Midwits do interpret it that way though
>>23023031
This desu, the Spaniards should never expusle the Moors and the Germanics should have never subverted the superior Romans. Goddamn slave moralists ruining everything

>>23026144
BAPism is about escapism first and foremost
Last Man's delicate pasttime

>>23028334
Does that matter if the resentful person kills you though?

>>23028306
I dont dismiss the notion that resentment holds people back in serious ways, and impacts not only them negatively but also others around them. However, the root of resentment is typically some type of pain. It doesn't even have to be as serious as rape, but even just petty social rejection. Or a geopolitical change they don't want.
It doesn't matter, the point is yes it is controllable by the people feeling it, but often they feel overwhelmed. You can't understand it if you haven't experienced it, and it sounds like you have, due to the hostile tone combined with the accuracy of some of the descriptions you give.
Which is why you should be able to see through your own bullshit better frankly. You know what it's like when you are in that state and there's really nothing that'll take you out of it other than whatever is meant to. I've been bitter, I'm sure you have, when you're in that frame of mind nothing will take you out of it other than whatever reality check inevitably does, and those moments always remain with us. That's how we grow.

It's not really up to us what brings someone out of it, and it's not incumbent upon anyone to engage with bitter or predatory people; but to judge them is wrong, and likely a reflection of you being mad at yourself for ever having succumbed to your own weakness. Forgive yourself so you can forgive others for succumbing as well. This is the basis upon which love is founded.

>>23027320
>a net bad for the world
Retarded utilitarian reasoning
Behold a Nietzschean!

>>23028335
>Midwits do interpret it that way though
Because they erroneously conflate resentment with anger, not having the emotional nuance capable of distinguishing the two. Ressentiment, what Nietzsche was talking about, was a very specific emotion. It's what the weakling feels towards the stronger type. Anger is what the strong feels towards the weaker type. They're completely different.

>>23028349
What would the act of violence change? Nothing. So yes, obviously, it still matters. Come back when you're 18+.

>>23022785
Ressentiment is not simple resentment, and if it were there'd be no need to make such a distinction. Nietzsche defines the master moralist as originating in the warrior caste's of early civilization. They defined 'the good' in relation to the warrior nobility, who principally were capable of reprisal due to their command over force. Thus, things like honesty, truthfulness and the ability to make free obligations was considered as vested uniquely in this class of people. I think this is also true personally, as proper cooperation and brotherhood is only possible among equals capable of action against those who break agreed upon pacts. Either way, this class of people then associated the 'bad' with that which was not them, or that which is subject. Thus those who are not free to act or to commit reprisals are also those who are dishonest, cowardly and inferior. The most important point which I should mention here is that the master moralist defines 'the good' first, leaving 'the bad' as simply that which is not good. In contrast, the subject castes of early societies construct morality in an inverted fashion. They are not able to commit reprisal, or organize force, thus they first consider 'the bad' as that which may cause harm against them. 'The good,' then from the perspective of a slave moralist is that which minimizes harm.

Now that that's out of the way, the way ressentiment relates to slave morality is the slave moralist, in his inability to act or commit reprisal plays a trick where by deception he manages to empower himself. He negates the assertive morality of the master moralist, and insists that everything that which is assertive, or value creating is in fact 'the bad' and that which denies this must be 'the good.' Thus the cowardly become the temperate or the just. The weak man becomes the 'moral man.' The ugly man the 'virtuous.' Ressentiment is ruinous in this sense, because it is by nature unable to assert or define value on its own terms, it can only deny or negate. It is pathetic because it is a lie, and underneath the moral preening is naked self empowerment. You will find many such people in the rabid utopianists, the indignant and self righteous moralists, and in many of the so called ascetic world denialists. They are utterly consumed by power, and their inability to act or empower in a direct or assertive way. They make ugliness out of life, and turn it into an utter banality of indignant screeching. If such people had their way we'd sit around a damp fire for the next 100k years unpacking our generational trauma and reveling in the filth of our flabby disgusting bodies.

>>23028359
>Anger is what the strong feels towards the weaker type
Also against an enemy that could be strong. The strong feel more contempt for thebweak than anger, anger exists in animals and humans for disputes and retaliation reasons
In general I agree
>>23028362
>What would the act of violence change? Nothing
It would be you dead, does that mean you're still better than a resentful type?

>>23028365
Nietzsche's genealogy is kinda retarded, also warriors were usually loyal defenders of the tribe/herd or of some king. They came up with little to no values besides "plunder good" (true statement)

>>23028372
>It would be you dead, does that mean you're still better than a resentful type?
Yes.

>>23028365
I'm a huge Nietzsche fangurl, imma give you the lowdown.
Nietzsche was a gigantic pussy who was an extremely timid and nervous person. When he was young his dad died and his dad was a Lutheran minister. N was gonna do the same thing, then he read Schopenhauer, and decided God was gay, everything was gay wah wah. He was raised around his mom and sister and was very bookish and sort of effeminate, he was basically a woman. When he went into the army he signed up for medic service both because he was afraid of combat and fundamentally not the type to kill. He was smart became a philologist we all know the deal.
He struck out with every woman he ever knew which was like two of them, and this caused a severe distress which you can see directly correlates with the tonal shift in his works. Beyond Good & Evil literally starts with supposing truth were a woman...what then?
Homeboy was sitting thinking about himself taking "le redpill" about how women don't like nerds like him. And from that point forward he started venerating strongmen in the extreme and their value set in the extreme; despite embodying literally none of that himself. In fact, not despite; BECAUSE of.
Then he resents Christianity as the source of the poison and Jews as the source of the original dynamic that produced it, while idolizing hellenistic warrior ethics and shunning women and womanly ideas; because he was an effete son of a minister who got rejected by the women he wanted.
He spent his remaining time typing furiously in the woods alone, and eventually went totally fucking insane.

You're basing your worldview off of the philosophical product of a man's own deep rejection of himself.

>>23028387
The things warrior nobility historically associated with themselves were virtues such as honor, courage, strength, truthfulness, and the unashamed drive to glory and immortality. There is no better account of these particular virtues than in the Iliad. The entire corpus of abrahamic morality in contrast considers the good with respect to the dictates of so called ethical conduct defined in whichever text. Anyhow Nietzsche's point is that many of the drives and feelings that are both valuable and inherent to the human animal, such as the drive to compete or best, come from a place that is specifically immoral from the perspective of systems of 'ethical' morality. In contrast to Christ's statement, the meek shall not inherit the Earth, and it has never been the meek that made men great.

>>23028433
>Then he resents Christianity as the source of the poison and Jews as the source of the original dynamic that produced it, while idolizing hellenistic warrior ethics and shunning women and womanly ideas; because he was an effete son of a minister who got rejected by the women he wanted.
Was he wrong, though? In reality, Christianity no doubt was the culprit behind his decadence.

>>23028448
Nietzsches point was literally that he couldn't accept himself for who he was and walked around pretending to be a mighty warrior in his mind while he literally did nothing that represented that at all. The guy was having a fucking mental breakdown 24/7 and when you're intelligent, which he was, a mental breakdown can still produce a lot artistic flourish, his writing is top notch.

He's no role model.

>>23028433
I don't give two fucks about Nietzsche's backstory. The ideas are valuable or they're not. You sound like an over socialized chimp who can only define truth with respect to the social credit it endows.

>>23028463
Sure, if one believes in the concept of decadence.
Did you know that words don't mean anything innately, and we can choose how we perceive literally anything?
"I suck, these men are better than me"
"I'm fine and I'll improve where I can"
Two different mindsets, applied to the same person, profoundly different results
The second guy will probably just live a life
The first guy will do some weirdo shit like write long books justifying who everyone now recognizes as the biggest faggots in history and all their atrocities and narcissism as good, while the edifying word of the Lord is bad because it tells people to be kind to each other, while he literally goes for walks in the woods and drinks at soda fountains like every other dandy fop of the time period

>>23028467
Again, you clearly have no interest in ideas as they are. You seem to only be able to consider them with respect to social utility and in light of that are genuinely no better than a tabloid gossip.

>>23028470
The ideas are an extension of who wrote them. To separate their value from their source is foolishness; doubly so, considering it was an integral part of Nietzsches philosophy when applied toward other philosophers.
Lol so you think the man who's philosophy relied on psychoanalyzing people shouldn't have his philosophy psychoanalyzed because ooglefloogledurpalblurrpppblurblebllllluuuuuuurrrrrrplppppppp

>>23028394
Based on an otherwordly standard, sure
Uh oh wat mean?

>>23028433
Nietzsche was weak so rejecting his weak self is good

>>23028448
1. Everyone did that bar women
2. Warriors were 99.99% at the service of someone else
I'm not sure if we disagree. I'd even add that they're immoral under Stoicist standards too (giant fags)

>>23028488
Oh, but I do.
Nietzsches ideas lead directly to mass enslavement of people, the justification of eugenics programs, mass murders, etc.
They deny God.
And that's a direct exponent of how Nietzsche chose to respond to the tragedy of life.
Trust and believe I care about the ideas, and their consequences.

>>23028481
>Did you know that words don't mean anything innately, and we can choose how we perceive literally anything?
You could do that, but if you get the shit kicked out of you, you'd be retarded to keep perceiving things in the way that led to that moment.

Nietzsche basically realized that Europeans like him had been made into sissy faggots thanks to Christianity's emphasis on servitude, and that the coming post-industrial era was going to hand them a huge pile of shit for their sissification. He was telling his brothers to man the fuck up pronto because non-white races and peasants were about to murder them all and rape all their women while the ones who managed to escape this outcome were likely to not even reproduce due to over-socialization. And he was right. This is precisely what's happening today.

>>23028498
>Based on an otherwordly standard, sure
If a nameless hoodlum had crept in at night to murder Leonardo da Vinci while he was asleep out of resentment, Leonardo would have remained the superior human being. There's no "otherworldly standard" at work here, and to argue otherwise is one hell of a cope.

>>23028470
>>23028488
Oh also I missed the bits about social credit
I spit out my drink. Im a fucking recluse, dumb dumb. The social credit the ideas deliver? Lol, no, I just don't wanna see people get hurt because faggots decide to take their pain out on the world and pretend it makes them strong. You know anyone like that?

>>23028506
>Nietzsches ideas lead directly to mass enslavement of people, the justification of eugenics programs, mass murders, etc.
These are spot on useful for Nietzsche's goals though
What's wrong?
>They deny God
No actually they affirm OT YHWH, Baal and others including Allah on some instances. They reject Abrahamic lore of Paul and Jesus

>>23028514
>Leonardo would have remained the superior human being.
Actually he'd just be dead because he wasn't strong enough to outcompete some retarded weakling
This is literally the reality, you're the one moralizing it

>>23028507
Is that what he was saying or are you just having a fucking panic attack?

>>23028506
"The purpose of society is the production of great men -- that is all."

-- The Will to Power

>>23028530
>Actually he'd just be dead
A person's emotional development is determined before they die. Being dead doesn't have any effect on how far their development had reached while alive.

>>23028535
Why do you think he kept addressing "we good Europeans" while instructing them to become more evil?

>>23028492
I don't think your 'tfw no gf' statement is 'psychoanalysis,' and I think you misunderstand Nietzsche if you think his work was as banal as that. Nietzsche wrote about types of persons, and general undercurrents of thought that found themselves evident in various works and people. You absolutely can assess Nietzsche's work with respect to this, but if you think that is equivalent to banal tabloid-esque statements about how he had no girlfriend, then you're simply stupid. I think it's a waste of time, but if we're going to get into that, I'd like you to show me a single shred of evidence that Nietzsche felt particularly resentful regarding his lovelife, because essentially all of his personal notes and diaries are specifically about his great feelings of joy and happiness, and of his love of writing and the opportunities solace provided him in his work. Even in his depressive periods, there is literally nothing to the effect of what you're claiming.

>>23024070
>no concept of loyalty
Every convert to christianity had already proven their disloyalty to their old beliefs

>>23028520
They directly refute OT YHWH, Nietzsche directly lays assault to OT YHWH many times, notably with the phrase "every 'thou shall,' replaced by 'I will!'"
Nietzsche also doesn't affirm Allah, he compliments Islam for its emphasis on "Master morality" style aggressive stance. But its all moot because Muslim actually believe in God as do Jews and Christians, Nietzsche didn't, and was analyzing these as systems of organizational power and structure. Believers don't understand them in that sense.

I agree they're useful for Nietzsches goals
I think Nietzsches goals are bad, if that wasn't clear
And that Nietzsche for all his gifts, was a crying faggot

>>23028544
Because he was fucking insane, like I said

>>23024036
It was an organic brain disease. Your post is nothing more than asshurt fuelled cope

>>23028563
No, it's because he knew Europeans were on the chopping block, which he was right about.

>>23028537
>emotional development
Socrates was a slave and so are you lmao

>>23028572
He was mistaken to think 99% of Euros were ever anything more than niggercattle as we see today
He'd do better addressing Central Asians lmao

>>23028553
Well, we're on 4chan so forgive me for engaging with a bit of levity and snark instead of producing an APA paper. Jesus fucking Christ.
Yes, I've read all his stuff religiously. I was a good little Nietzschean for years, I value a lot of what he wrote, especially the shorter aphorisms, there is much insight and practical wisdom in what he says that was good.
I probably quote BG&E second only to the Bible. His best stuff is when he's being reflective or self critical. And he's a magnificent writer, there's probably no better philosopher from a literary standpoint.
>Even in his depressive periods, there is literally nothing to the effect of what you're claiming.

The entire philosophy is. Begging for a return to classical hierarchies is motivated expressly from resentment against the world.

>>23028583
>no u!
Resentment is a slave's privilege, and chimping out at someone more mature than yourself doesn't magically make you more mature.
>This is literally the reality, you're the one moralizing it

>>23028568
They never did an autopsy, thats an unverified claim
>>23028572
We shall see

>>23028593
Yes, the slave wouldn't become better and I never argued against it since it's uncontested but thanks for bringing it up Socratic friend

>>23024036
Wrong about what? He just repeated Christian values. Literally copypasted them

>>23028629
>Yes, the slave wouldn't become better and I never argued against it
Then we're in agreement and this exchange is pointless.

>>23028642
Socratesbros...
>>23028394
>>23028583

>>23028651
What is your autistic brain malfunctioning over, exactly?

>>23023705
I'm not reading your blog posts.

>>23028664
Read Nietzsche and you might get it

>>23028688
I think the reading that needs to be done is my posts, by you.