What does Nietzsche mean by this and ''Blond beast''?

[Anonymous No.20182762]

“At the centre of all these noble races we cannot fail to see the blond beast of prey, the magnificent blond beast avidly prowling round for spoil and victory; this hidden centre needs release from time to time, the beast must out again, must return to the wild: - Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings - in this requirement they are all alike. It was the noble races which left the concept of 'barbarian' in their traces wherever they went; even their highest culture betrays the fact that they were conscious of this and indeed proud of it.”

[Anonymous No.20182781]

you have to go back and read his early shit. he references a couple times iirc when critiquing nationalism. i do not believe he's using it in a positive term, as shown in the last line. it's from genealogy of morals, right?

[Anonymous No.20182796]

>>20182781
Genealogy of Morals, yes

[Anonymous No.20182813]

>>20182762
He got that from Dya-Na-Sore by Meyern.

[Anonymous No.20182840]

>>20182762
I really need to read Nietzsche, I am such a pseud.

All the same, I think what he's referring to is the natural tendency of "Great Peoples" to hold on to a savage past. This sort of makes sense, since historically who would great people be? They would be a bunch of warriors coming in and enslaving people to do their agricultural work whereon they would set up a dynasty of some kind. But in settling down to drive their slaves and dig up their fortunes from the earth, they operate contrary to their natural tendency to reave which is the source of their greatness to begin with.

I don't know if ultra-rich people still perform hunts though like the British did, but I'm sure they engage in something 'primal'. As an aside, I wonder if this means a billionaire has more in common with a law-breaking ultra rural redneck than they do their doctor or mid-level employees.

[Anonymous No.20182869]

>>20182813
On my to-read list.

[Anonymous No.20182876]

This makes a lot of sense if you apply it to Scandinavia. Look at Greek art. Females were portrayed as pale because they were in the kitchen so the sun didn't burn them. Males were portrayed as dark (tanned) because they were out there in the sun earning a living. Before you go full /pol/tard you should considered that this has nothing to do with race but with the portrayal of their gender and function. Either way, among whites, women prefer those with darker features (hair, skin, etc.) but with blue eyes. Pale and blonde = feminine.

Now, as you know, Scandinavia is having a massive increase in trannies. Like holy shit. Many young men are becoming trannies. Who make the best trannies? Blond men. They're basically women already. All it takes is a little push.

As you now, Scandinavia has sucked in art and literature historically. They just don't have in them. Why? Because artistic pursuits are fundamentally masculine. Art requires reason, drive, spirit, and balls. Good male artists abound, good female artists are scarce. In the past, women were receptors of good romantic poems made by men. Men are active, women are passives. And Scandinavians suck at art because they are feminine, and they are feminine because they are blond.

Now, as feminine cultures, they care for comfort and living standards because women are neat and materialistic and want a clean house. Comfort kills the creative drive. So not only are Scandinavians feminine and therefore not artistic, but they are also materialistic and bland societies who live bubbled lives which don't enable the creative juices.

Blond & pale = feminine = high living standards = sucking at art.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.
THE GREEKS WERE RIGHT.

[Anonymous No.20182886]

>>20182762
>Perhaps a subtler comparison will reveal that, to the credit of Richard Wagner's German nature, he fashioned stronger, more daring, more severe and more elevated things than a nineteenth‑century Frenchman could have done — thanks to the circumstance that we Germans are still closer to barbarism than the French —; perhaps the most remarkable thing Wagner created is even inaccessible, inimitable to the entire, so late Latin race for ever and not only for the present: the figure of Siegfried, that very free human being who may indeed be much too free, too hard, too cheerful, too healthy, too anti‑Catholic for the taste of peoples of an ancient, mellow culture. He may even have been a sin against romanticism, this anti‑Romantic Siegfried: well, Wagner amply atoned for this sin in his old, melancholy days when — anticipating a taste which has since become political — he began, with the religious vehemence characteristic of him, if not to walk at any rate to preach the road to Rome.

[Anonymous No.20184045]

lmao cope chuds