Nietzsche and the Nazis:
Author draws Unique Links between Nietzsche and Hitler’s Political Ideology

Friedrich Nietzsche is probably best known as the philosopher who “killed” God. However, Abir Taha offers a new vision of him, one that involves the Nazi occult thought, which she details in her groundbreaking new book, Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman; Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine.

“From times immemorial, humanity has dreamt of creating the perfect man, the ‘God-man’ or ‘Superman’. Yet this cult was only clearly expressed in the philosophy of its modern prophet, Nietzsche, and culminated in its fiercest supporter, the National Socialist ideology, a political religion whose main ideal and objective were the creation of a superman species,” Taha says.

Her book, Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism, unveils what she calls “The Nazi Secret Doctrine” or “Esoteric Nazism.” According to Taha, this doctrine is “purely Nietzschean in character.” Through her book, she draws a clear distinction between the hidden Hitlerian thought, which was “aristocratic, supra-national, spiritual and universal,” and the “exoteric, popular, vulgar version of Nazism,” which was based on Pan-German nationalism, socialism and racism. Taha reveals the “spiritual pagan Aryanism” she found inherent in both doctrines.

By taking this stance, Taha has created a unique, intelligent and innovative portrayal of Nietzsche and the Nazis because the book shows both the real Nazi doctrine, which “goes beyond nationalism and biological racism,” as well as Nietzsche’s “hidden eugenicist, spiritual and universal Aryanism.” Taha explains each in detail while establishing a clear, direct link between these two doctrines by analyzing Nazism in the light of Nietzsche’s philosophy. From religious beliefs to views on power, morality and superiority, the book exposes the seams that Taha believes hold the two ideologies together in world history.

A unique portrayal of the link between one of the most controversial philosophers and one of the most enigmatic political groups in history, Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism reveals the depths of the spiritual, racial and political dynamics of their philosophies and the impact they have had on the world.

For more information, visit the book’s web site at www.nietzsche-prophet-of-nazism.com.

interesting book. who is the author? some avatar of devi? LOL

Fred N. was in some ways a philosemite. We have talked about this before at VNN but you need to have actually read some of his works especially Genealogy of Morals to be able to discuss the topic well.

Tell us more about yourself "Arya arhat." ??

The author is Abir Taha, a Lebanese woman at the Sorbonne. Basically the book is a rehash of all the "Nazi or not??" books by Germans, Jews and Frenchmen over the last century. Nietzsche has been everything except a Mormon. For all that, obviously he was not a liberal, as anyone who takes the trouble to read The Will to Power can see, and just as obviously, personal acquaintance with Jews, and two Jews in particular, compromised his understanding of the matter. The Jewish Question was advanced enough at that time that he might have studied it, had he not been prejudiced by his Jewish friends and translators, as well as coming from an ecclesiastic background and a classical education, which in short made him a snob in regard to politics and the Jew. He moved too much in that stuck-up francophile scene in Switzerland and Italy at the turn of the century, full of Jews and little kultur cliques. Lenin and Mussolini also spent some time in this hotbed of anti-German sentiment, later on. I believe Mussolini had a Russian-Jew mistress, when he was a communist?
Anyway — the "Nietzsche and Jews" topic has been beaten to death. But this is what happens when Academia is unchecked; you get book after book on the same subject.

interesting book. who is the author? some avatar of devi? LOL

Fred N. was in some ways a philosemite. We have talked about this before at VNN but you need to have actually read some of his works especially Genealogy of Morals to be able to discuss the topic well.

Tell us more about yourself "Arya arhat." ??

interesting book. who is the author? some avatar of devi? LOL

Fred N. was in some ways a philosemite. We have talked about this before at VNN but you need to have actually read some of his works especially Genealogy of Morals to be able to discuss the topic well.

Tell us more about yourself "Arya arhat." ??


Dear Antiochus and others,

If you read the book "Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism", you would really change your mind about Nietzsche being a philosemite... I posted another thread under the title "the Nazi Secret Doctrine" in which I inserted the table of contents of the said book, which gives you a pretty good idea of how Nietzsche's philosophy was essentially Aryanist and pagan. Read this table of contents, it will give you an idea about the book.

If you read the chapter on anti-semitism of the said book, you will clearly change your mind regarding Nietzsche's much-praised but dead-wrong "philosemitism" (which by the way is a lie made up by jews to appropriate Nietzsche's thought, and alas! white supremacists are themselves believing this lie, which is a great favour to jews)...

Among dozens of quotes, I have chosen these three (quoted in the book) to just give you an idea of how Nietzsche truly viewed the Jews:

"People of the basest origin, in part rabble, outcasts not only from good but also from respectable society, raised away from even the smell of culture, without discipline, without knowledge, without the remotest suspicion that there is such a thing as conscience in spiritual matters; simply-- Jews"

“Ours is the kingdom of the rabble… Rabble, however, means hotchpotch. Rabble-hotchpotch: in that everything is mixed up with everything else, saint and scoundrel and gentleman and Jew and every beast out of Noah’s ark”

“Decay! Decay! Ne’er sank the world so low! Rome is now a harlot and a brothel, too, Rome’s Caesar a beast, and God himself- a Jew!”

If you read the Antichrist, you will discover how extremely anti-semitic and aryanist Nietzsche truly was...

Best regards,
Arya

you can pick and choose all kinds of quotes from Fred N.

But here it is, for the umpteenth time. In Genealogy of Morals, he talks about noble vs slave morality. How most peoples think that strength is good, weakness bad, stuff like that. The Jews were like that at first-- wanted to conquer and exterminate their neighbors, Kind David, etc. Then they were crushed by Babylon and sent into Diaspora.

There, enslaved, they might have just gave up the ghost as a tribe. But in order to keep their people together, and maintain a sort of collective will to power, they began to turn their morality on its ear. To change it, to transform it from noble into slave-- this was called "tranvaluation" of morals.

Then he ties that into Christianity which he regarded as a Jewish phenomenon.

Then towards the end he talks about his admiration for this crazy little feat of collective "will to power" and how it spoke of a determination to live.

This is part of what I'm talking about. I'd have to dig out my dusty tomes to flesh it out more than that.

Uppinata is right, there's been far too many books on this subject already. Most of them by Jews, probably. Here some Lebanese chirps in belatedly. Hurrah. Question Arhat: how did you find our forum, where are you from, what is your interest in posting here? Just to promote books or what? We'd like to hear more about you.

interesting book. who is the author? some avatar of devi? LOL

Fred N. was in some ways a philosemite. We have talked about this before at VNN but you need to have actually read some of his works especially Genealogy of Morals to be able to discuss the topic well.

Tell us more about yourself "Arya arhat." ??


Didn't FN advocate the biological assimilation of Jews and the Prussian ruling elite? He was off somewhat but close in that we have Jews assimilating with the WASP elite.

Didn't FN advocate the biological assimilation of Jews and the Prussian ruling elite? He was off somewhat but close in that we have Jews assimilating with the WASP elite.


Yep. In Beyond Good and Evil. In the same passage he says the Jews could - if they wanted to - take over Europe, 'just as surely as they are not tending towards that purpose.' Bullshit! Communism proved him wrong. Zionism is proving him wrong. Hypercapitalism is proving him wrong.

The Egyptian enslavement of the Jews came before King David.
'Will to power' is the most misused term in the history of philosophy. It is not synonymous with the lust for power, because plants, which are not selves, cannot 'lust for power', though they express will to power. WtP=principle of differentiation and entropy.

However, give me Nietzsche any day over pinkos like Bertrand Russell! And commie kikes like Derrida/Adorno/Marcuse/Horkheimer/Fromm/Olman/et al.

There is already another thread about this book. My comment is there.

Apparently the guy started two identical threads: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=25907

I give up. Here it is:


Her book, Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism, unveils what she calls “The Nazi Secret Doctrine” or “Esoteric Nazism.” According to Taha, this doctrine is “purely Nietzschean in character.” Through her book, she draws a clear distinction between the hidden Hitlerian thought, which was “aristocratic, supra-national, spiritual and universal,” and the “exoteric, popular, vulgar version of Nazism,” which was based on Pan-German nationalism, socialism and racism. Taha reveals the “spiritual pagan Aryanism” she found inherent in both doctrines.
I think that the importance of Nietzsche to the National-Socialist cause in Germany has been overstated, mainly because of the residue of Allied World War One propaganda that used quotes from Nietzsche to characterize the Germans as ruthless atheists. There is no mention of Nietzsche anywhere in Mein Kampf, and there are only two brief mentions in Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century. When Rosenberg gave a speech on the 100th anniversary of Nietzsche's birth, it was only with a lot of qualifications that he praised the man. It is completely false, as some people claim, that Nietzsche was "used" by the National-Socialists in their propaganda: this would have been counterproductive because the vast majority of Germans and party members were solidly Christian.

I have been surprised to find recently, however, that Nietzsche's influence on the social sciences during the Third Reich was considerable. If there was an esoteric national-socialism, it was in the area of anthropology and psychology, but this was not "spiritual" and "universal" in the New Age sense. Nietzsche was all about man as a biological entity, and this was the emphasis of the social sciences in the Third Reich. This esoteric National-Socialism supported the racial policies.

I wonder what Taha's assumptions are about "vulgar" National-Socialism. Very likely they are false, so that her perception of a dichotomy would be based to some extent on the difference between myth and reality rather than exoteric and esoteric.

Yep. In Beyond Good and Evil. In the same passage he says the Jews could - if they wanted to - take over Europe, 'just as surely as they are not tending towards that purpose.' Bullshit! Communism proved him wrong. Zionism is proving him wrong. Hypercapitalism is proving him wrong.
The Egyptian enslavement of the Jews came before King David.
'Will to power' is the most misused term in the history of philosophy. It is not synonymous with the lust for power, because plants, which are not selves, cannot 'lust for power', though they express will to power. WtP=principle of differentiation and entropy.
However, give me Nietzsche any day over pinkos like Bertrand Russell! And commie kikes like Derrida/Adorno/Marcuse/Horkheimer/Fromm/Olman/et al.

Thanks. I like Fred N too. I've read all his books and had one class on him, which was easily one of my favorites in my whole education.

I'll mention one thing from that class, which I think is relevant. The prof said day one, forget about what you've been told about Nietzsche as Nazi. Though there may be topics where they intersect, it's more the opportunistic promotion of her brother's estate by Elizabeth to rising star admirers like Mussolini and the national socialists, than anything. Years later and having read much more on the topic, I think I agree with him more than ever.

Today I see FN as something like a modern day Julian Apostas, a sort of Hellenic revivalist, in ongoing ironic opposition to what he perceived Christianity to be. Ironic I say, because like Julian-- who dumped Christ for Mithras-- he goes from one universalist/ dualistic cult to another. Zarathustra of course prefigures Mithras. However Fred N explicitly rejected a certain dualism-- in favor of what I'm not sure. How can you reject dualism? It's like saying there is no such thing as truth.

How can you reject dualism? It's like saying there is no such thing as truth.


Which is exactly what Nietzsche did, haha! He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote. He didn't accept the existence of objects, either. I wrote a dissertation on that a couple of years ago. He was an anti-nihilist, though. His extreme scepticism is an exercise at cleaning up the bad habits of the history of philosophy.
That reminds me, Russell wrote a right old pinko piece on Nietzsche in his History of Western Philosophy. Russell was a good logician but a shit philosopher.

The Jews went to Egypt whenever drought made life impossible in Israel. The Jews, like the subsaharan Negros, went to Egypt for jobs with the more advanced (white) Egyptians. In those days it was acceptable for masters to beat their workers, that's why you see those pictures on the wall. When things got better in Israel and southern Africa the blacks and browns went home. The only thing true about the Moses story is that the Jews stole everything they could get their hands on when they left Egypt. It was the gold that they had stolen from the Egyptians that they used to make their golden cow while Moses was doing God knew what on the mountain allegedly getting the ten commandments from God.

However Fred N explicitly rejected a certain dualism-- in favor of what I'm not sure. How can you reject dualism? It's like saying there is no such thing as truth.
If I correctly detect your reference, Nietzsche rejected the slavish inversion of ethics and culture implicit in good-and-evil, hoping to revive aristocratic notions of good-and-bad. This is GM, First Essay. I beg your pardon if I have mistaken your meaning and am repeating an obvious point.

Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman ISBN:1420841211

The book deeply analyses Nietzsche's influence on Nazi ideology, focusing on how the Nazis appropriated most of Nietzsche's concepts and ideals to fit them into their own doctrine. Yet in doing so, the author draws a clear distinction between the Nazi esoteric doctrine, - which is elitist, supra-national, and spiritual -, and the popular, nationalist exoteric doctrine. She then endeavours to establish a clear link between the Nazi secret doctrine and Nietzsche's philosophy, revealing both the occult character of Esoteric Nazism and the pagan Aryanism of Nietzsche. The book has therefore a two-fold contribution: it unveils the Nazi esoteric doctrine, which the author claims is purely Nietzschean in character, and analyses Nietzsche's philosophy in order to extract from it a clearly eugenicist, Aryanist dimension, thus establishing a clear link between the German philosopher's thought and the Nazi Secret Doctrine. The author thus unveils both Nietzsche's universal Aryanism as well as Nazism's esoteric doctrine. This subject is of great interest to all those interested in a deeper understanding of the spiritual dimension of Nietzsche's thought, as well as the occult nature of Nazism, and the relationship between these two doctrines. The book aims to end the controversy that is still ongoing today as regards Nietzsche's relation to Nazism, by showing that the exoteric side of Nazism, which focuses on nationalism and biological racism, had little to do with Nietzsche's elitist, universal and spiritual Aryanism, thus coming up with the conclusion that Nietzsche's influence was essentially on the esoteric, spiritual, secret doctrine of Nazism.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=61-1420841211-0

The Jews went to Egypt whenever drought made life impossible in Israel. The Jews, like the subsaharan Negros, went to Egypt for jobs with the more advanced (white) Egyptians. In those days it was acceptable for masters to beat their workers, that's why you see those pictures on the wall. When things got better in Israel and southern Africa the blacks and browns went home. The only thing true about the Moses story is that the Jews stole everything they could get their hands on when they left Egypt. It was the gold that they had stolen from the Egyptians that they used to make their golden cow while Moses was doing God knew what on the mountain allegedly getting the ten commandments from God.


Part of Nietzsche's theory is that Egypt primed the kikes' national character.

Dualism = materialism and mentalism.
Monism = preference of one over the other.

Which is exactly what Nietzsche did, haha! He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote. He didn't accept the existence of objects, either. I wrote a dissertation on that a couple of years ago. He was an anti-nihilist, though. His extreme scepticism is an exercise at cleaning up the bad habits of the history of philosophy.
That reminds me, Russell wrote a right old pinko piece on Nietzsche in his History of Western Philosophy. Russell was a good logician but a shit philosopher.

How about you upload your paper? Or cut and paste some relevant text? I'm always interested in what other VNNers have written in "the real world."

If I correctly detect your reference, Nietzsche rejected the slavish inversion of ethics and culture implicit in good-and-evil, hoping to revive aristocratic notions of good-and-bad. This is GM, First Essay. I beg your pardon if I have mistaken your meaning and am repeating an obvious point.

No, actually I was thinking about him rejecting dualism as such in favor of something else-- Angle identified what I was getting at.

I find it ironic, that he uses the figure Zarathustra, because many have thought that Zarathustra was the one who brought dualism to the west-- by it serving as dualist antecedent to dualist Christianity.

Was FN trying to resuscitate aristocratic morality? That is what I got from the beginning of Genealogy of Morals, but not from the end. His admiration of the will-to-power entailed in transvaluation-- his grudging admiration for the Jew tribe and its collective will to power-- those are some of the memorable things I got from Genealogy of Morals. Can we honestly say that there aren't times when we too don't admire, in spite of ourselves, and our enmity over our own destruction at their hands, in spite of all that, admire the determination, the collective resolve, the flexibility and the evident power of the Jew?

Back to rejecting the slavish morality entailed in "good and evil." How can you unring a bell? Like going back to paganism. How is that really possible? How do you undo a synthesis, and go back to the thesis, as if the antithesis never came up? You cant. What you have to do is essentially take the synthesis as thesis, and counterpoint a new antithesis-- and see if a new synthesis emerges. I think this is what is suggested in the expression "beyond" good and evil. But do we ever get there in his writing? Are we there now?

Same thing with the God is dead business. God is dead "we have killed him." Clearly, he's talking about a perception of God, not the objective existence or non-existence of God. The whole conversation, Zarathustra going about in the night with a lantern-- like the Greek philosopher looking for an honest man-- is Zarathustra talking about US not really God. People who regard FN as atheist, are missing the boat if you ask me. Not atheist, nor theist. He's not concerned with God or gods, but with men, and the overman.

I'm not making any great or new insights here, just trying to build the conversation a little.

No, actually I was thinking about him rejecting dualism as such in favor of something else-- Angle identified what I was getting at.

I find it ironic, that he uses the figure Zarathustra, because many have thought that Zarathustra was the one who brought dualism to the west-- by it serving as dualist antecedent to dualist Christianity.
And Nietzsche explains, in Ecce Homo, that he used the figure of Z. precisely in order to have he who brought forth the dualist destructiveness imaginatively responsible for undoing it.



Was FN trying to resuscitate aristocratic morality? That is what I got from the beginning of Genealogy of Morals, but not from the end.
At the end of the critical First Essay thereof, he calls for the revival of the "ancient fire" - the regard for the "supreme rights of the few".



His admiration of the will-to-power entailed in transvaluation-- his grudging admiration for the Jew tribe and its collective will to power-- those are some of the memorable things I got from Genealogy of Morals.
I think you are confusing GM with earlier works, particularly BGE.



Can we honestly say that there aren't times when we too don't admire, in spite of ourselves, and our enmity over our own destruction at their hands, in spite of all that, admire the determination, the collective resolve, the flexibility and the evident power of the Jew?
I'm too much of the warrior caste to admire the Regime of the Lie, but I often reflect upon how cleverly Jewry has devised rationales for the pursuit of their own ends that are fanatically affirmed by the Weenies and Morons that are most of what is left of the Goyim. Zum Beispiel, the Hollywood History of the Second World War has something for both elements - the Morons still think that our shores were defended from Axis invasion, and the Weenies have the Hoax with which to justify the war even where they know enough about the episode to realize that FDR lied a blue streak with regard to Axis geo-political objectives.



Back to rejecting the slavish morality entailed in "good and evil." How can you unring a bell? Like going back to paganism. How is that really possible? How do you undo a synthesis, and go back to the thesis, as if the antithesis never came up? You cant. What you have to do is essentially take the synthesis as thesis, and counterpoint a new antithesis-- and see if a new synthesis emerges. I think this is what is suggested in the expression "beyond" good and evil. But do we ever get there in his writing? Are we there now?
Can the prey ever become the predator? The peasant an aristocrat? Nietzsche hoped, in BGE, to cultivate (to "fish" for) those who could be transformed into pre-moderns, into the gentilhomme. To a certain extent I "over-came" myself through a combination of education and natural predisposition - most importantly through an understanding, which Nietzsche intuited, that the ends of men cannot be reconciled as is the present-day utopianist pretence. The Kingdom of God and the Utopia of Man are intrinsically unrealizable, not because men are sinners/evil, but because it is an intractable aspect of the administration of human affairs and in the nature of organic existence.



Same thing with the God is dead business. God is dead "we have killed him." Clearly, he's talking about a perception of God, not the objective existence or non-existence of God. The whole conversation, Zarathustra going about in the night with a lantern-- like the Greek philosopher looking for an honest man-- is Zarathustra talking about US not really God. People who regard FN as atheist, are missing the boat if you ask me. Not atheist, nor theist. He's not concerned with God or gods, but with men, and the overman.
"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is, being strong enough to do so; this type is not estranged or removed from reality but is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it—only in that way can man attain greatness."

This is the over-man, the aristocrat - he who can assess the world objectively, as does the Bird of Prey contemplating the Lamb, because he rules by violence, by good-and-bad, rather than by the Lie, as does the priest, as does the Jew. The under-man, the Lamb, the prey, understandably sees the predator, the aristocrat, as of the blackest EVIL - hence the diabolization of Hitler, the paranoia manifest in witch and show trials, the megalomaniacal "choseness" of the Jews, which characterize a culture dominated or manipulated by an alien, internationalist priesthood competing with a native regime by cultivating the lower elements. This began, of course, when Nehemiah and Ezra, backed by the Persian army, imposed a Zoroastrian and racist regime upon the Hebrews/Jews who survived Assyrian dispersion, and continued as The Church fought with Kings and Emperors for control of the West (see especially the bizarre episode of primitive superstition-wielding at Canossa), and plagues us today as Jewry leaves the underside of no rock unoccupied.

There is no objectivity to Nietzsche. We are all the pawns of some priest. Using objectivity to convey something is the priestly act par excellence - one denies one has any part in using the tools of priestly persuasion in order to foist something on others. Same thing with the Stoics when they appealed to nature (BGE, 9). See GS, 121.

And Nietzsche explains, in Ecce Homo, that he used the figure of Z. precisely in order to have he who brought forth the dualist destructiveness imaginatively responsible for undoing it.

At the end of the critical First Essay thereof, he calls for the revival of the "ancient fire" - the regard for the "supreme rights of the few".

I think you are confusing GM with earlier works, particularly BGE.

I'm too much of the warrior caste to admire the Regime of the Lie, but I often reflect upon how cleverly Jewry has devised rationales for the pursuit of their own ends that are fanatically affirmed by the Weenies and Morons that are most of what is left of the Goyim. Zum Beispiel, the Hollywood History of the Second World War has something for both elements - the Morons still think that our shores were defended from Axis invasion, and the Weenies have the Hoax with which to justify the war even where they know enough about the episode to realize that FDR lied a blue streak with regard to Axis geo-political objectives.

Can the prey ever become the predator? The peasant an aristocrat? Nietzsche hoped, in BGE, to cultivate (to "fish" for) those who could be transformed into pre-moderns, into the gentilhomme. To a certain extent I "over-came" myself through a combination of education and natural predisposition - most importantly through an understanding, which Nietzsche intuited, that the ends of men cannot be reconciled as is the present-day utopianist pretence. The Kingdom of God and the Utopia of Man are intrinsically unrealizable, not because men are sinners/evil, but because it is an intractable aspect of the administration of human affairs and in the nature of organic existence.


"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives, conceives reality as it is, being strong enough to do so; this type is not estranged or removed from reality but is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it—only in that way can man attain greatness."

This is the over-man, the aristocrat - he who can assess the world objectively, as does the Bird of Prey contemplating the Lamb, because he rules by violence, by good-and-bad, rather than by the Lie, as does the priest, as does the Jew. The under-man, the Lamb, the prey, understandably sees the predator, the aristocrat, as of the blackest EVIL - hence the diabolization of Hitler, the paranoia manifest in witch and show trials, the megalomaniacal "choseness" of the Jews, which characterize a culture dominated or manipulated by an alien, internationalist priesthood competing with a native regime by cultivating the lower elements. This began, of course, when Nehemiah and Ezra, backed by the Persian army, imposed a Zoroastrian and racist regime upon the Hebrews/Jews who survived Assyrian dispersion, and continued as The Church fought with Kings and Emperors for control of the West (see especially the bizarre episode of primitive superstition-wielding at Canossa), and plagues us today as Jewry leaves the underside of no rock unoccupied.

Crikey, where the hell have you been the past three years? I'm hanging it up. You take over now.

You make the same sense of Nietzsche that Evola does in Calvalcare le Tigre. That's the way I would like to see him too, but my doubts persist. Maybe I'll crack the books over Turkey day and see if I can hold up my critical notions of Fred with some text.

The only thing in particular I would respond to in your comments is that my conceptions of warrior-ethics don't exclude deception as a method. Honesty and integrity are virtues, but I'm not some damn hoplite who can only lock shields and march forward. Flexibility and the principled and disciplined use of strategem or cunning are arrows in my quiver just like any other.

The only thing in particular I would respond to in your comments is that my conceptions of warrior-ethics don't exclude deception as a method. Honesty and integrity are virtues, but I'm not some damn hoplite who can only lock shields and march forward. Flexibility and the principled and disciplined use of strategem or cunning are arrows in my quiver just like any other.

I think you would exclude the fundamental falsification of reality.

From BGE 259:

"On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter; people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which 'the exploiting character' is to be absent:-- that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. 'Exploitation' does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life.--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the fundamental fact of all history: let us be so far honest towards ourselves!"

And I think you would decline encouragement of belief that indulgence in fatuities will be redeemed by God (Masada, Muenster, Waco) - History (Bolshevism, Anarchism, Cargo cultism) - or Science (Progress ideology, Whiggery, Egalitarianism).

From GM, 1st Essay:

"With the French Revolution, Judea once again triumphed over the classical ideal, and this time in an even more profound and decisive sense: the last political noblesse in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth century, collapsed beneath the popular instincts of ressentiment—greater rejoicing, more uproarious enthusiasm had never been heard on earth! To be sure, in the midst of it there occurred the most tremendous, the most unexpected thing: the ideal of antiquity itself stepped incarnate and in unheard-of splendor before the eyes and conscience of mankind—and once again, in opposition to the mendacious slogan of ressentiment, 'supreme rights of the majority,' in opposition to the will to the lowering, the abasement, the leveling and the decline and twilight of mankind, there sounder stronger, simpler, and more insistently than ever the terrible and rapturous counterslogan 'supreme rights of the few'! Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon appeared, the most isolated and late-born man there has ever been, and in him the problem of the noble ideal as such made flesh—one might well ponder what kind of problem it is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and superhuman.

"Was that the end of it? Had that greatest of all conflicts of ideals been placed ad acta [Disposed of] for all time? Or only adjourned, indefinitely adjourned?

"Must the ancient fire not some day flare up much more terribly, after much longer preparation? More: must one not desire it with all one's might? even will it? even promote it?"

There is no objectivity to Nietzsche. We are all the pawns of some priest. Using objectivity to convey something is the priestly act par excellence - one denies one has any part in using the tools of priestly persuasion in order to foist something on others. Same thing with the Stoics when they appealed to nature (BGE, 9). See GS, 121.
I believe that Nietzsche revised his views in this regard:

"From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a 'pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition,' let's guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as 'pure reason,' 'absolute spirituality,' 'knowledge in itself'—those things which demand that we imagine an eye which simply can't be imagined, an eye without any direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence these things always demand from the eye something conceptually empty and absurd. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective. The more emotional affects we allow to be expressed in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our 'idea' of this thing, our 'objectivity,' will be. But to eliminate the will in general, to suspend all our emotions without exception—even if we were capable of that—what would that be? Wouldn't we call that castrating the intellect?"

That last quote of Nietzsche's is of course a parroting of Schopenhauer. But let me go back...

Some one mentioned plant's "will to power" and "He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote." Of course Schopenhauer maintained this for his Will. So how does calling it a different name make it something different?

In dumb objects will is seen in obedience to gravity, and other forces, in plants stimulus, in animals understanding and in men reason and each ensuing category contains all of the previous.

Nietzsche would create a teleology with his Superman. He had to find a universal "yes", but Schopenhauer had already dismissed any teleological arguments because there is nowhere to go. This plays into Nietzsche's eternal recurrence fears. Which is to heavy for me to go into in any detail here. Read Schop.

Schopenhauer maintained there could be no improvement from man to some Superman because in man the will has the ability to reflect on itself. For the first time it could bring into reflection what it is. Schopenhauer maintained that at this the will being everything could not developmentally go any futher because it had met its brickwall: itself.

Any Superman would be aware that what he called his 'I' was no more than a motor car being driven around by the will. In sleep it goes into the garage and the will comes out to turn over the engine once every so often.

"For example, Nietzsche’s ideas of the Apollian and the Dionysian in the Birth of Tragedy are largely based upon Schopenhauer’s distinction between representation and will." - http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/nietzsche/schop.html

And to a certain degree I disagree, but the thought is there. So you see Nietzsche's will was struggling with its reflection. The will could see itself reflected in the world and yet it did not want to be aghast but to give an eternal "Yea!". However he fails mostly, because he, himself, to do this had to do things like create a teleology when he had no foundation for doing so. Thus the will did not see itself clearly enough. It could not say a thorough "yea" because it had not yet seen itself clearly.

I should also say most of the descriptions of Supermen show a distinct lack of reflection upon the will thus they would be "untermenschen" and more akin to animals.

you can pick and choose all kinds of quotes from Fred N.

Uppinata is right, there's been far too many books on this subject already. Most of them by Jews, probably. Here some Lebanese chirps in belatedly. Hurrah. Question Arhat: how did you find our forum, where are you from, what is your interest in posting here? Just to promote books or what? We'd like to hear more about you.


Dear members,

I am not "promoting" any books, I was just sharing with you my positive opinion on a book which is innovative and honest, since it is probably one of the very few books on Nietzsche which depicts him as an Aryan pagan, thus repudiating the views of Jews and pseudo "nietzscheans" who have totally distorted this great philosopher's Aryan message. That's all. No need to lambast a book you haven't read!! And what's sad is that this is a pro-
aryan book you are lambasting!!! If a Jew had written a book which glorified Nietzsche as a philosemite, would you see the Jews criticizing it or him??? That is the problem with Aryans today, they are extremely and are versed in self-destructive criticism, which is a very great favour to the Jews!!
Regarding your forum, I find it very interesting, of course, why else would I join it? Where I am from doesn't matter, since our motto is MY RACE IS MY Nation and "Aryans of the world unite!". The Jews are ruling the world not because they are "superior" (preposterous! They are the typical Subhumans, Untermenschen), but because Aryans have lost faith in themselves and have fallen victim to the myth of Jewish "supremacy" (yuch! The word is revolting when used to describe the typical Menschentiere, human beasts).
You will hear more about me, but PLEASE, let us stick together and stop putting ourselves down! This forum is intended for discussion, but POSITIVE discussion in order to find ways to change the pitiful state of the white race, so let's keep it that way! Thanks comrades.
Arya

'Will to power' and 'Superman' are gibberish beloved of librarians and other indoorsmen. Civilization involves asserting and subordinating will, hopefully in a nigger and jewfree context. We are more together, now cooperating, now competing, than we are alone. The whole debate is beside the point, which is that we just now are beginning to develop the scientific tools to understand what we actually are. Without that knowledge all we can do is close-read behavior. I read Nietzsche because he's funny. Secondarily, he has some good digs at christian pukes. 'Will to power' - that's the stuff of comic books. He's guessing, which he had to since knowledge wasn't available. The baby study KM cites, which shows jew larvae inherently more xenophobic than Aryan babies - that is where you begin to get the truth about 'men' in their various subdivisions.

I believe that Nietzsche revised his views in this regard:

"From now on, my philosophical gentlemen, let us protect ourselves better from the dangerous old conceptual fantasy which posits a 'pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of cognition,' let's guard ourselves against the tentacles of such contradictory ideas as 'pure reason,' 'absolute spirituality,' 'knowledge in itself'—those things which demand that we imagine an eye which simply can't be imagined, an eye without any direction at all, in which the active and interpretative forces are supposed to stop or be absent—the very things through which seeing first becomes seeing something. Hence these things always demand from the eye something conceptually empty and absurd. The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective. The more emotional affects we allow to be expressed in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our 'idea' of this thing, our 'objectivity,' will be. But to eliminate the will in general, to suspend all our emotions without exception—even if we were capable of that—what would that be? Wouldn't we call that castrating the intellect?"


That is the same thing. Objectivity = more perspectives (not 'the one' objective perspective). It's in the first book of BGE.

Interestingly, Nietzsche was the first to say that Christianity was a Jewish conspiracy against Rome. Pretty much everything in GM book one is in evidence today in the Jewish media pundits - 'hate hating', the attempt to redefine your values, weakness lauded as strength (diversity in a kosher nutshell), the craftiness of the slave caste (Hale's imprisonment), comfort uber alles, etc. He also leads the way out of the gefilte fish's stomach - 'kill your enemies, don't listen to their preaching.' Basically the stuff that science can't get to.

......
Interestingly, Nietzsche was the first to say that Christianity was a Jewish conspiracy against Rome. Pretty much everything in GM book one is in evidence today in the Jewish media pundits - 'hate hating', the attempt to redefine your values, weakness lauded as strength (diversity in a kosher nutshell), the craftiness of the slave caste (Hale's imprisonment), comfort uber alles, etc. He also leads the way out of the gefilte fish's stomach - 'kill your enemies, don't listen to their preaching.' Basically the stuff that science can't get to.

No, I'm pretty sure that lots of Romans viewed it that way too. I am ordering Celsus on this topic.

I don't think Julian the Apostate viewed it this way, because he teamed up with the Jews against the Christians. Julian, there's another dualist. Threw Christianity overboard in favor of the suspiciously similar Mithraism.

I read Nietzsche because he's funny.
I read Nietzsche because he recovered the lost understanding of the proper moral essence (the truthfulness and honor of men who rule by violence) of aristocratic culture - a priceless contribution to the comprehension of ourselves as Aryans and to a perspective on the Regime of the Lie that has engulfed us.

No, I'm pretty sure that lots of Romans viewed it that way too. I am ordering Celsus on this topic.

I don't think Julian the Apostate viewed it this way, because he teamed up with the Jews against the Christians. Julian, there's another dualist. Threw Christianity overboard in favor of the suspiciously similar Mithraism.


Because the Romans were the 'baddies' who lost against the great Christian 'goodies' we can hardly claim to be spiritually 'on their side'. We were on Jesus's team. So was Nietzsche - who broke rank and said we're the followers of a Kike Kult against Aryan Rome. There were many Messiahs during that era (Neil Faulkner wrote a History Today article about it). Why would Jeboo give the Romans any more worries than the rest?

Because the Romans were the 'baddies' who lost against the great Christian 'goodies' we can hardly claim to be spiritually 'on their side'. We were on Jesus's team. So was Nietzsche - who broke rank and said we're the followers of a Kike Kult against Aryan Rome. There were many Messiahs during that era (Neil Faulkner wrote a History Today article about it). Why would Jeboo give the Romans any more worries than the rest?
Does this make sense to anyone? Please explain.

Its quite obvious by reading Nietzsches actual works that he was in no way interested in Nazism, nor is it important. Nietzsches philosophical endevours were interesting and provided tools employed by almost every contintental philosopher since, be they Marxist, right wing, post structuralist, feminist, nazi, whatever.

He is an everyman.

Beyond Good and Evil
#251

That the Jewish could, if they wanted - or if they were compelled, as the anti-Semites seem to want - even now predominate, indeed quite literally rule over Europe, is certain; that they are not planning and working towards that is equally certainPretty much says it all, don’t you think?


Beyond Good and Evil
#251

A thinker who has the future of Europe on his conscience will, in all the designs he makes for this future, take the Jews into account as he will take the Russians, as the immediately surest and most probable factors in the great game and struggle of forces.If Nietzsche had lived to see Russia taken over by jews in 1917 he would have been a fan of the National Socialists -- just like Heidegger.

I have ordered the book from Amazon.It comes highly recommended.

This all reminds me of the WWI anti-German propaganda that had the German soldiers charging into battle with a copy of Nietzsche under one arm and a copy of Bernhardi under the other. :rolleyes:

No wonder the Germans lost WWI. They had no room for ammo in their sacks.
I've heard from different sources that the Germans had:

the Bible
Zarathustra
Holderlin's hymns (Heidegger's claim)
Bernhardi

on their persons.

Part 5: Natural History of Morals
195
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/bgept5.htm
The Jews—a people “born into slavery” as Tacitus and the whole ancient world says, “the chosen people” as they themselves say and believe—the Jews achieved that miracle of inversion of values thanks to which life on earth has for a couple of millennia acquired a new and dangerous fascination—their prophets fused “rich,” “godless,” “evil,” “violent,” “sensual” into one and were the first to coin the word “world” as a term of infamy. It is in this inversion of values (with which is involved the employment of the word for “poor” as a synonym of “holy” and “friend”) that the significance of the Jewish people resides: with them there begins the slave revolt in morals.
Poor Nietzsche...
http://personales.ciudad.com.ar/M_Heidegger/Nietzsche_11.jpg He needed a high-speed internet connection and a girlfriend. :nerd:
Beyond Good and EvilPrelude to a Philosophy of the Future
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/bge.htm

That last quote of Nietzsche's is of course a parroting of Schopenhauer. But let me go back...

Some one mentioned plant's "will to power" and "He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote." Of course Schopenhauer maintained this for his Will. So how does calling it a different name make it something different?

In dumb objects will is seen in obedience to gravity, and other forces, in plants stimulus, in animals understanding and in men reason and each ensuing category contains all of the previous.

Nietzsche would create a teleology with his Superman. He had to find a universal "yes", but Schopenhauer had already dismissed any teleological arguments because there is nowhere to go. This plays into Nietzsche's eternal recurrence fears. Which is to heavy for me to go into in any detail here. Read Schop.

Schopenhauer maintained there could be no improvement from man to some Superman because in man the will has the ability to reflect on itself. For the first time it could bring into reflection what it is. Schopenhauer maintained that at this the will being everything could not developmentally go any futher because it had met its brickwall: itself.

Any Superman would be aware that what he called his 'I' was no more than a motor car being driven around by the will. In sleep it goes into the garage and the will comes out to turn over the engine once every so often.

"For example, Nietzsche’s ideas of the Apollian and the Dionysian in the Birth of Tragedy are largely based upon Schopenhauer’s distinction between representation and will." - http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/grd/resguides/nietzsche/schop.html

And to a certain degree I disagree, but the thought is there. So you see Nietzsche's will was struggling with its reflection. The will could see itself reflected in the world and yet it did not want to be aghast but to give an eternal "Yea!". However he fails mostly, because he, himself, to do this had to do things like create a teleology when he had no foundation for doing so. Thus the will did not see itself clearly enough. It could not say a thorough "yea" because it had not yet seen itself clearly.

I should also say most of the descriptions of Supermen show a distinct lack of reflection upon the will thus they would be "untermenschen" and more akin to animals.
I disagree with Schopenhauer. At no level can life safely predict whether higher life is possible or what the limits of such higher life might be. The trend of the past is for advances in the scope and quality of consciousness, and it would be a strange coincidence if we happened to represent the ultimate manifestations of consciousness allowed by the laws of our universe.

That is, I characterize Schopenhauer's position as a defeatist conceit, which is the sort of thing Nietzsche didn't care for. He's as much as saying, "Yessir, just as soon as we came along, the story of evolutionary history was finished...might as well close the book."

In contrast, Nietzsche assumes to be true what I said about life being generally unable to predict the nature of its successors and whether such successors will exist, and he continues the trend of the evolutionary past into the future. While it is true that I find Nietzsche more pleasing, it's also true that I find him more reasonable.

Jerry Abbott

The Jews went to Egypt whenever drought made life impossible in Israel. The Jews, like the subsaharan Negros, went to Egypt for jobs with the more advanced (white) Egyptians. In those days it was acceptable for masters to beat their workers, that's why you see those pictures on the wall. When things got better in Israel and southern Africa the blacks and browns went home. The only thing true about the Moses story is that the Jews stole everything they could get their hands on when they left Egypt. It was the gold that they had stolen from the Egyptians that they used to make their golden cow while Moses was doing God knew what on the mountain allegedly getting the ten commandments from God. That would be a plausible explanation if we knew that there were at least an element of truth in the Exodus story, but we don't know that. The whole story of Moses and the Exodus is extremely dubious, since the Egyptian records refer to no such event, and archaeological evidence does not support the existence of Jerusalem until centuries after the Exodus was supposed to have occurred.

Some one mentioned plant's "will to power" and "He's more of a monist - 'there is will to power and nothing else,' he wrote." Of course Schopenhauer maintained this for his Will. So how does calling it a different name make it something different?

This is an elementary question. Schopenhauer's will is a blind will to exist. With will to power, Nietzsche goes beyond will to existence; he incorporates the observation of Isocrates that power is always either waxing or waning; a will merely to exist is therefore not enough to secure existence. Nietzsche also thereby makes conflict the essence of life rather than an unfortunate concurrent of life as Schopenhauer represents.

Life is not worthwhile because of conflict, Schopenhauer says. Embrace conflict because it is the essence of life, Nietzsche says; not to embrace life is the behavior of sick people.

Abir Taha
Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman.
Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine

Author House, Bloomington, Indiana 47403, USA, 2005 www.AuthorHouse.com

A Review by Fredrick Toben
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Think/abirtaha.htm

Arya Arhat has been promoting this book various places:

New Nation News forum
http://www.nnnforum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23996&hl=nietzsche

Stormfront
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=246749&highlight=Nietzsche

VNN forum
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=25907