DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs Right
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25959--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: April 14, 2024, 11:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We must raise awareness that bodybuilding is energetically
wasteful. As already discussed, extra muscle mass requires not
only extra energy to initially build, but also thereafter extra
energy just to maintain, and also means extra mass to move
around during daily activity which further wastes energy.
Healthwise, extra muscle mass also places extra strain on
internal organs due to having to work harder to serve the
increased body size, and also hinders the immune system as
covered here:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/aryan-immune-system/msg655/#msg655
We can deduce that those who go for the bodybuilder physique are
those who are also unconcerned about wasteful behaviour, which
is certainly true of Nietzscheans.
#Post#: 25961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: SirGalahad
Date: April 15, 2024, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that on an aesthetic level, bodybuilding shouldn’t be
promoted. But on a practical level, I get what RP is saying. For
as long as the world contains even a single bodybuilder, isn’t
it best to encourage as many leftists as possible (regardless of
sex) to become bodybuilders also? Not encouraging it as
intensely as rightists do for their own camp, would simply lead
to most leftists being physically overpowered in any sort of
close combat or confrontation initiated by rightists. The same
sort of logic is applied when we defend gun ownership, despite
personally hating guns
#Post#: 25963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: April 15, 2024, 2:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"leftists being physically overpowered in any sort of close
combat or confrontation initiated by rightists."
If this were the case, top combat sports athletes would have
bodybuilder physiques. But they rarely do:
HTML https://cdn.imago-images.com/bild/st/0307783442/m.jpg
Bodybuilder physiques just reduce mobility.
"we defend gun ownership"
Yes, and you can also shoot attacking rightists, which does not
require a bodybuilder physique either. Indeed, bodybuilder
physiques would be easier targets in a shootout.
#Post#: 26467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Exposing people with the Western Darwinian Worldview
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 17, 2024, 1:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Moral Competitionism and Progressivism
--- Quote ---
> Finally, I would like to bring attention again to a section in
my book answering the question: how do we connect the barbaric
asocial traits of prehistoric Indo-European warriors to the
superlative cultural achievements of Greeks and later civilised
Europeans? Nietzsche provides us some keen insights as to how
the untamed agonistic ethos of Indo-Europeans was translated
into civilised creativity. In his fascinating early essay,
‘Homer on Competition’ (1872), Nietzsche observes that civilised
culture or convention (nomos) was not imposed on nature, but
rather was a sublimated continuation of the strife that was
already inherent to nature (physis).The nature of existence is
based on conflict and this conflict unfolded itself in human
institutions and governments. Humans are not naturally
harmonious and rational as Socrates had insisted; the nature of
humanity is strife. Without strife there is no cultural
development. Nietzsche argued against the separation of
man/culture from nature: the cultural creations of humanity are
expressions or aspects of nature itself.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age by Ricardo Duchesne page 202
#Post#: 26540--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 23, 2024, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler's Gnosticism Confirmed part 2
--- Quote ---
> Hitler never said he was a big fan or had read Nietzsche. He
always claimed to have read and admired Schopenhauer. He had
Schopenhauer books that he read during his service on the WW1
Western Front, in between running messages to officers
headquarters and playing with his dog. He misinterpreted
Schopenhauer but at least he read Schopenhauer.
>
> Nietzsche’s works were legally inherited by his unintelligent
sister who cared for Nietzsche after he had his mental
breakdown, and died in 1900 at age 55. She had no idea what her
brother was talking about, but she was married to a German
Nationalist Anti Semite. Nietzsche’s sister and her husband
became friends with the Nazis and they even had visits with
Hitler. The Nazis and Nietzsche’s sister benefited from their
association, but it was no benefit to philosophy.
>
> Hitler and the Nazis used such ideas as the Ubermench and the
Will to Power to support Nazi ideology. They weren’t
philosophers, they were politicians and the idea of having an
esteemed philosopher supporting their politics was very useful
for them, whether they understood Nietzsche or not. Reputable
scholars say Nietzsche would have despised the Nazis.
>
> The Nazis used Nietzsche to give themselves intellectual
credibility, but it was all political nonsense.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://www.quora.com/Why-does-almost-everyone-insist-that-Nietzsche-had-to-do-with-fascism-and-Hitler
#Post#: 26541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Hitler: The Face of Anti-Tribalism
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 23, 2024, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler's Gnosticism Confirmed part 3
--- Quote ---
> Nietzsche’s Political Legacy, edited by Eitelfritz
Scheiner. It is a slender hardbound book with a quote from
Nietzsche scrawled on the inside cover by the editor and dated
December 15, 1933: “It was those who created the races and
hung them with a belief and with love: thus they were of service
to life.”
>
> Other sources attesting to Hitler’s interest in
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are notoriously unreliable. Ernst
Hanfstaengl claimed that Schopenhauer had been Hitler’s
“philosophical god in the old Dietrich Eckart
days”—Eckart himself attributes several Schopenhauer
remarks to Hitler in his “Conversation”—but
that following the meeting with Nietzsche’s sister, Hitler
became a convert. “From that day at Potsdam the
Nietzschean catchphrases began to appear more
frequently—the will to power of the Herrenvolk, slave
morality, the fight for the heroic life, against reactionary
education, Christian philosophy and ethics based on
compassion,” Hanfstaengl confidently recalled though he
mistakenly placed the encounter in Potsdam rather than Weimar.
“Schopenhauer, with his almost Buddhist gentleness, was
buried forever, and the Gauleiters started to take their
inspiration from a savage parody of Nietzsche.”
>
> Riefenstahl provides an equally vivid but contradictory
account. “I have a great deal to catch up on,”
Riefenstahl recalls Hitler telling her in the book-lined comfort
of his Prince Regent Square apartment. “In my youth I did
not have the means or the possibility to provide myself with an
adequate education. Every night I read one or two books, even
when I go to bed very late.” He said that these readings
were his primary source of knowledge, the grist from which he
derived his public speeches. “When a person
‘gives’ he also has to ‘take,’ and I
take what I need from books,” he said. When Riefenstahl
asked Hitler what he liked to read, he allegedly replied,
“Schopenhauer.”
>
> “Not Nietzsche?” Riefenstahl asked.
>
> “I can’t really do much with Nietzsche. He is more
an artist than a philosopher; he doesn’t have the
crystal-clear understanding of Schopenhauer. Of course, I value
Nietzsche as a genius. He writes possibly the most beautiful
language that German literature has to offer us today, but he is
not my guide.” - Adolf Hitler
--- End Quote ---
Source :
1. Adolf Hitler > Quotes > Quotable Quote - Goodreads
HTML https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9457275-i-can-t-really-do-much-with-nietzsche-he-is-more
2. Hitlers Private Library The Book - Archive.org page 113 - 115
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlers-private-library-the-book/page/n113/mode/2up
#Post#: 26543--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 23, 2024, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Recall also from Aryanism.net:
--- Quote ---
> The supposed ideological connection between Nietzsche and
Hitler is based on nothing more than a misleading photo-op of
Hitler at the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, which he visited not on
his own initiative but at the insistence of Elisabeth Foerster
(a financial donor to the NSDAP). There is no evidence that
Hitler considered National Socialism to be in any way inspired
by Nietzsche; on the contrary, during private conversations with
such as Hans Schemm he denounced Thule Society members (often
the same ones interested in occult studies) who attempted to
suggest a Nietzschean origin to National Socialism. In Hitler’s
own words: “I’ve expressly and repeatedly forbidden this sort of
thing! All that rubbish about the “Thing” places, the solstice
festivals, the Midgard snake, and all the rest of the rubbish
they dredge up from German prehistory! Then they read Nietzsche
with fifteen-year-old boys and, using incomprehensible
quotations, paint a picture of the superman, exhorting the boys:
‘That is you—or that is what you are to become.’” In fact,
Hitler’s main philosophical influence was undoubtedly
Schopenhauer, whose books he studied both by himself as a
soldier during WWI, and later again under self-professed
Schopenhauer disciple Dietrich Eckart. Alfred Rosenberg recalls
those days of their private study group: “Occasionally, when I
went to see him in the morning, he would meet me on the stairs
and read me his latest effort right then and there. … Or else,
Eckart might just have come across another beautiful passage in
his beloved Schopenhauer, which he would insist upon reading to
me on the spot.” Hitler’s other great influence was Wagner
(himself a Schopenhauer disciple, by no coincidence), to the
extent that he said: “Whoever wants to understand National
Socialism must first know Wagner.” Nietzsche, in contrast, held
a negative opinion of both Wagner and Schopenhauer (“The
unworthy attempt has been made to see Wagner and Schopenhauer as
types of mental illness: one would gain an incomparably more
essential insight by making more precise scientifically the type
of decadence both represent.” – Friedrich Nietzsche) Therefore
it is impossible for National Socialism to be Nietzschean.
--- End Quote ---
Further details:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche_contra_Wagner
--- Quote ---
> Nietzsche attacks Wagner's views, expressing disappointment
and frustration in Wagner's life choices (such as Nietzsche's
mistaken belief that Wagner had converted to Christianity,
perceived as a sign of weakness).
> ...
> saying that Wagner
>
> is a master at finding tones in the realm of human suffering,
depressed and tortured souls, at giving voice to even mute
misery.
> ...
> Nietzsche states that Wagner and the philosopher Arthur
Schopenhauer are to Nietzsche antipodes — opposites.
> ...
> the ones that Wagner responds to. Such decadents need mildness
and a god for the sick — a healer, a savior. Nietzsche says
after exploring Epicureanism and Christianity, and has developed
a sharp eye for what he terms “backwards inference” — to
understand the creator by knowing the creation, and to ask: “Is
it hatred against life, or the excess of life which has become
creative?”[20][21][22]
> ...
> Nietzsche focuses on Wagner’s opera Parsifal. The story of
Parsifal is partly based on medieval Germanic legends and
Christian ideals, and it dramatizes a conflict between
sensuality versus chastity.[28]
>
> 1. Part one of "Wagner as Apostle of Chastity" is a verse by
Nietzsche, written in the style of a poem by Goethe. Parsifal
contains an act of castration, which Nietzsche refers to in line
three.[29] Nietzsche’s poem begins by asking:
>
> "Is this still German?
> Out of a German heart, this torrid screeching?
> A German body, this self-laceration?
> German this priestly affectation, this incense-smelling lurid
preaching?"[30]
> ...
> If Parsifal is taken seriously, it would be seen as a "curse
on the senses and the spirit", a regression to "sickly Christian
and obscurantist ideals", and a "self-abnegation".
> ...
> Nietzsche concludes, "The preaching of chastity remains an
incitement to anti-nature: I despise everyone who does not
experience Parsifal as an attempted assassination of basic
ethics."[40][41]
--- End Quote ---
Besides:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Reception_and_legacy
--- Quote ---
> Nietzsche had a distinct appeal for many Zionist thinkers
around the start of the 20th century, most notable being Ahad
Ha'am,[294] Hillel Zeitlin,[295] Micha Josef Berdyczewski, A.D.
Gordon[296] and Martin Buber, who went so far as to extoll
Nietzsche as a "creator" and "emissary of life".[297] Chaim
Weizmann was a great admirer of Nietzsche; the first president
of Israel sent Nietzsche's books to his wife, adding a comment
in a letter that "This was the best and finest thing I can send
to you."[298] Israel Eldad, the ideological chief of the Stern
Gang that fought the British in Palestine in the 1940s, wrote
about Nietzsche in his underground newspaper and later
translated most of Nietzsche's books into Hebrew.[299]
> ...
> The First International claimed Nietzsche as ideologically one
of their own.[304] From 1888 through the 1890s there were more
publications of Nietzsche works in Russia than in any other
country.[305] Nietzsche was influential among the Bolsheviks.
--- End Quote ---
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/arthur-schopenhauer-vs-friedrich-nietzsche/msg17020/#msg17020
#Post#: 26727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 11, 2024, 6:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nietzsche were Anti-Socialist and Support Western Capitalistic
Darwinian Society
--- Quote ---
> In these works, Nietzsche diagnoses what he names the
“optimistic worldview” as a condition of the modern age, and he
locates it in a historical tendency stretching back two thousand
years to the teachings of Socrates. He went as far as to
describe the uprising of anarchists and communists during the
Paris Commune as a “saturnalia of barbarism” led by workers who
were little more than a “class of barbaric slaves who have
learned to regard their existence as an injustice, and now
prepare to avenge, not only themselves, but all generations.”
>
> Unlike many of his conservative contemporaries, Niezsche did
not aim for the restoration of a lost tradition, nor did he
profess nostalgia for a bygone aristocratic order. He rather
aimed to cultivate a following — as his romantic interest Lou
Salomé put it, “Nietzsche writes not to convince, but to
convert.” At the heart of his political outlook is an
aristocratic calling to his readers to participate in overcoming
and subduing the democratic and socialist impulses spreading
across European civilization.
>
> A central concern of Nietzsche’s political thought from these
early works up to his more mature work in Thus Spoke Zarathustra
(1883) is the crisis of the individual genius. Nietzsche is
obsessed with pacifying the movements which he views as being in
favor of leveling and equality. These, he feared, would erase
the possibility of individual genius in culture.
>
> ...
>
> In this phase, Nietzsche starts to lean more heavily on
physiological ideas. His work in the late 1880s, The Antichrist
(1895) and Twilight of the Idols (1889), marks what he calls his
“declaration of war” on the weak and the degenerate. Nietzsche
was familiar with the eugenics movement, and it is these
writings that make him its spiritual godfather.
>
> While Nietzsche’s reactionary agenda is evident throughout his
career, scholars of his politics like Frederick Appel and György
Lukács have shown that in his later-period works, like The Will
to Power (1901), he breaks to the right of Bismarck on the
topics of imperialism, war, and the workers’ question. The late
Nietzsche is meant to inspire his readers to rise above the
compassion and weakness of the masses by making themselves
capable of brutality toward those he regards as the weak, the
degenerate, and the failed.
>
> ...
>
> It is important to emphasize that Nietzsche was fascinated by
political economy, and he returned multiple times throughout his
career to the writings of the Philadelphia-based political
economist Henry Charles Carey. It was the American thinker’s
concept of economic competition that Nietzsche championed as
useful for maintaining the harmony of the social order. We know,
also, that he knew of Marx, but there is no proof that he ever
seriously read him — though the name Marx is underlined in one
of the books in Nietzsche’s library.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Why Nietzsche Hated Socialism
HTML https://jacobin.com/2024/05/nietzsche-deleuze-marx-postmodernism-socialism#:~:text=Throughout%20his%20life%2C%20Friedrich%20Nietzsche,differences%20and%20suppressing%20individual%20genius.&text=Our%20new%20print%20issue%2C%20centered,of%20religion%2C%20is%20out%20now.
#Post#: 26728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: June 11, 2024, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Nietzsche is obsessed with pacifying the movements which he
views as being in favor of leveling and equality.
--- End Quote ---
This part we agree with in principle. Socialism should not be
about achieving equality:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10981/#msg10981
--- Quote ---
> Throwing out egalitarianism from leftist thinking is what we
are here to do. True Leftism still believes in superiority and
inferiority; the difference is that we believe the superior can
be (and in reality are more often than not) defeated by the
inferior in worldly competition (the colonial era being one
example). In other words, True Leftism is divergence of the
moral hierarchy from the natural hierarchy.
>
> Socialism is then the attempt, given awareness of the above,
to set things up in practice so as to help the superior (but
less competitive) defeat the inferior (but more competitive).
--- End Quote ---
But Nietzsche would surely oppose this even more than he opposes
levelling!
#Post#: 26863--------------------------------------------------
Re: Arthur Schopenhauer vs Friedrich Nietzsche
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 26, 2024, 10:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Friedrich Nietzsche has more in common with Classical-Liberalism
and Fascism, not National Socialism
--- Quote ---
> What is frustrating about this morass is that Beiner has, in
fact, stumbled onto something significant. Beiner is absolutely
right that it’s possible to offer a coherent Nietzschean defense
of liberal capitalism, with Weber as one model. Beiner points
toward a centrist liberalism that can be distinguished from
ultra-rightism only by a decision about values, rather than a
difference in underlying worldview. That doesn’t bother Beiner
too much. He seems confident that the good guys can stick,
indefinitely, to the basically nonrational commitment that
separates them from the bad guys. Or at least that it’s the best
hope we’ve got.
>
> But if we were to do what Beiner asks us to do in the
introduction — take a closer look at the history of actually
existing Nietzscheanism or Heideggerianism — it might prove
harder to keep the faith. We would find it disturbingly
difficult in practice to separate the liberal wheat from the
far-right chaff.
>
> Take Max Weber, for instance. He ends up as the unlikely hero
of Dangerous Minds, capable of seeing the “iron cage” of
modernity as clearly as Nietzsche and Heidegger and “affirming”
it anyway. “Because it doesn’t rest upon the entertaining of
fantasies about the transcendence of modernity,” Beiner
eulogizes, “Weberian nobility is ultimately more noble than
Nietzschean nobility.” And yet an ardent German nationalism ran
throughout the work of this “very pessimistic liberal” like a
red-and-black thread. Read against the grain, Weber’s work shows
less a stoic resolve in the face of modernity’s inevitability,
and more a terror at its precarity, at least in its
German-imperial incarnation.
>
> For Weber, the iron cage was always under threat from some
non-German menace. In his 1895 Inaugural Lecture at Freiburg
University (where Heidegger would later become rector under the
Nazi regime), it was Polish farmers. They were migrating into
eastern Prussia and threatening the livelihood of native German
workers with their racially determined willingness to labor
under more degrading conditions. The solution that Weber
proposed in 1893 was nothing less than the “absolute exclusion
of the Russian-Polish workers from the German East.” Near the
end of his life, the threat was the racially debased forces
fighting Germany in World War I. He warned an audience in 1917
“that Germany is fighting for its very life against an army in
which there are negroes, Ghurkas, and all manner of barbarians
who have come from their hiding places all over the world and
who are now gathered at the borders of Germany, ready to lay
waste to our country.”
>
> In between, Weber developed an elaborate theoretical account
of the “elective affinity” between capitalist modernity and the
unique cultural traits of Europeans. Capitalism didn’t just
happen to develop in Europe. It was born out of Europeans’
distinctive religious-cultural capacity for discipline and
instrumental rationality, as opposed to what Weber called the
“boundless greed of Asians.” Weber’s belief in the
world-historical “destiny” of the German state was not, as
Beiner claims, an aberration, but a logical extension of the
core of his thought.
>
> Weber is hardly the only Nietzschean “liberal” to have played
sustained footsie with the authoritarian or nationalist right.
Scholars have noted a similar trajectory in the history of the
Austrian school of economics, the intellectual cornerstone of
the twentieth-century neoliberal movement. The political
theorist Corey Robin elicited a storm of controversy in 2013,
mostly from libertarian writers, for an essay highlighting
parallels between Nietzsche and the Austrians. But some
similarity is plain as day, not only (or especially) with
respect to Nietzsche personally but to the subsequent
Nietzschean tradition.
>
> Weber, for instance, was an interlocutor of the school’s early
twentieth-century leader, Ludwig von Mises, and an inspiration
to younger members such as Alfred Schütz and Joseph Schumpeter.
The most important twentieth-century Austrian economist, F.A.
Hayek, issued denunciations of “rationalism” as strong as any to
be found in Nietzsche or Heidegger. (The political theorist
Michael Oakeshott, to whom Hayek is often justly compared, has
been called the “English Heidegger.”)
>
> More recently, there was Don Lavoie, a mentor to many
influential US Austrian school adherents and, at the time of his
death, the Charles Koch Professor of Economics at George Mason
University. Lavoie spent his career arguing for an affinity
between Austrian school methodology and the “hermeneutic”
philosophy of Heidegger and his follower Hans-Georg Gadamer.
>
> The strongest point of contact between many Austrian liberals
and Nietzscheans such as Heidegger is a shared conviction that
political authoritarianism can be tolerable or even necessary in
the face of advancing leftism. Heidegger’s recently published
Black Notebooks show the extent to which his support for Nazism
was related to his terror of creeping “Bolshevism,” which he saw
(of course) as powered by world Jewry. Similar considerations,
sans antisemitism, drove Ludwig von Mises to declare in 1927
that fascism “has, for the moment, rescued European
civilization” by suppressing communist uprisings in Italy. “The
merit that fascism has thereby acquired for itself will go on
living in history eternally,” he pronounced.
>
> The historian Quinn Slobodian has demonstrated how this logic
continued to underpin neoliberal support for authoritarian
regimes in apartheid South Africa and Augusto Pinochet’s Chile.
Whether motivated by the economist Wilhelm Röpke’s horror at the
prospect of majority rule by black South African “cannibals,” or
dismay at the popular support enjoyed by Chile’s democratically
elected Marxist president, Salvador Allende, the Austrian
tradition has proved more than willing to make its peace with
the idea of a “liberal dictator,” as Hayek once called Pinochet.
>
> So it’s less surprising than it might initially appear that
Ludwig von Mises has joined Nietzsche and Heidegger in the
pantheon of today’s alt-right. Richard Spencer has recommended
that his acolytes read von Mises and his American student Murray
Rothbard. Mencius Moldbug, the preferred brand of
pseudo-highbrow neofascist leaders, agrees: “Mises is a titan;
Rothbard is a giant,” he has written. The chairman of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute (LVMI) in Auburn, Alabama, is Lew Rockwell,
whom you might remember for ghostwriting all those racist Ron
Paul newsletters. The LVMI’s most notorious affiliate is
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, whose 2001 screed Democracy: The God That
Failed has become something of a bible for the alt-right
movement.
>
> It’s not just capitalist liberals backsliding into fascism, in
other words. The fascists have a hard time staying away from
capitalist “liberalism” as well.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Baker, Erik. (2018). Why the Alt-Right Loves Nietzsche. Accessed
on Wednesday, 26th June 2024, from
HTML https://jacobin.com/2019/01/neitzsche-heidegger-ronald-beiner-far-right
Liberalism led into Rightism
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page