Easter pr0n display dismantled by rabid SWJ (Hitler would approve)

[reelfountain]

Like a lot of history's thinkers Nietzsche did kind of live in a fantasy world, yes.

 

[evennow]

Well I have been putting out my Easter display for years and have never had a problem. Back in the garage until next year:

 

[reelfountain]

The cult of Millennial weirdo Greta Thunberg...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/22/the-cult-of-greta-thunberg/

 

[Anonymous]

He would still be on your side?
He has never been on your side during his life, but explicitly opposed to you.
He never "had a bad word" about the "jewish elites"... A weird way to say it, he didn't believe in the concept, but he had many bad words about the idiots who supported anti-semitic ideas.
Anyway... Nazis don't make sense and that's a fact.



Nietzsche was a right winger... though such thing does not mean that he was racist and during his life he met lots of persons whose ideas were very close to the ones that nazism supported. He absolutely detested those ideas in a very explicit way.
Other than that, her sister amended his books as to make them fit into the nazi ideal... his books have been corrected corrected as to bring back what Nietzsche wrote instead of what her sister wrote a long time ago.

It happens with many authors in a weird way: the nazis want to make them become "one of their own", when those authors thought exactly the opposite (i.e, same thing happens with Ernst Jünger... who hated Hitler with passion, but the neo.nazis don't seem to get it -hint: his own son was murdered as a way to "discipline" him because he dared to be openly opposed to nazism).



He became insane during his last years due to the last stages of syphilis... an organic dementia.
I don't think he was crazy before the sickness attacked his brain (then again, he didn't write any book whilst he was insane, he only wrote some nonsensical letters like a love letter to a horse).

I note that you don't provide links to back up anything you type. You just expect us to trust that whatever you're saying is accurate. But I don't trust you in the slightest because you've already proven yourself to be an unreliable narrator who lacks discernment. Stating as fact that Hitler engaged in coprophilia for example, based on nothing more than a wartime report by US intelligence services --- and you didn't provide a link to that either, I had to dig for it myself to see where it came from.

Nor did you provide a link to Nietzsche's comments about his sister, which I found was a discarded amendment to a chapter of Ecce Homo and wasn't published until the late 1960s.
His use of language was so coarse that at first it was deemed by his editor that he must already have descended into madness by the time he wrote it, and it was kept out of Ecce Homo for that reason.

Nietzsche certainly would be considered a 'racist' by today's standards -- and I'm not saying that to try to get into a discussion about his work, because I never was all that interested in him or his work and therefore I don't have a whole lot to say about it. I'm speaking only about the attitude of a man who was alive during the late 19th century -- using him as a symbol of that era -- and saying the attitude of a European man from that age, in this case Nietzsche's, would align more with my outlook of the world today than with yours.

And from that I'm saying it's not a great leap for me to "claim him", if I wanted him, because the majority of his views and my views, the fundamental stuff, would likely match up. Unless you think in 2019 he would be carrying 'refugees welcome' banners and wearing 'this is what a feminist looks like' t-shirts, or whatever. He's already mine. 99% of the European canon is. I don't need to jump through hoops to attempt to make the views of these writers align with mine, because they already do.
And when I refer to "my views", I mean my actual views and not the Nazi caricature you're trying to paint.

Whether he was an "anti-Semite" or not -- another term used only by the dishonest or the undiscerning -- is irrelevant to me. He didn't live in a world where Israel existed, he didn't live to see the age of mass-media or the USA as a world superpower as it is now. I don't demand "anti-Semitism" from my writers anyway, #1 because I don't believe in absolutes in that way with someone adhering to an "anti-something" label 24 hours a day (very few people meet that stereotype), and #2 I only require intellectual honesty from writers, along with humility, ideally.

Regarding Nietzsche's work, if you want to send me some stuff from him which holds up as anti-racist in this day and age (let's see how many hoops you have to jump through to find it), then I'll be happy to take a look at it. I won't just take your word for it. Reminder that I don't particularly care if he was "anti-Semitic" or not, and if he had harsh words to say about "anti-Semitic idiots", implying you think that applies to me, I don't consider that a rebuke against my very existence. And I would still maintain that in all probability his views and my views would be more in sync than his would be with yours.

 

[The Truth]

 

[The Truth]

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

That the "fame" thing was kind of a joke and led to the rise of the Kardashians and their imitators? It's true but I think “You can recognize a small truth because its opposite is a falsehood. The opposite of a great truth is another truth,” applies here. He loved fame and famous people but it was also a joke.
And what was up with Steven Spielberg in the interview?
Speilberg: I swallowed a battery! It was the future!
Warhol: Really? Gee...

On something? Spielberg on coke. Bianca on quaaludes. And Andy ? was just being Andy.

Or not.

 

[Oh my]

I note that you don't provide links to back up anything you type. You just expect us to trust that whatever you're saying is accurate. But I don't trust you in the slightest because you've already proven yourself to be an unreliable narrator who lacks discernment. Stating as fact that Hitler engaged in coprophilia for example, based on nothing more than a wartime report by US intelligence services --- and you didn't provide a link to that either, I had to dig for it myself to see where it came from.

Links to back up what I wrote? I didn't know I was talking to a millenial teen.
The links I want to provide you are simply telling you that in the same way that you haven't read most of the books by Nietzsche, I have read his complete works... several times. Though I have also read all the books by the philosophical rivals he has chosen (which means Plato, St. Augustine, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer... the list goes on).
You should try something a bit more complicated than a "link"... visiting a bookstore... Though if you are a Nazi who hates books, then use google, but I won't do that for you.

Nor did you provide a link to Nietzsche's comments about his sister, which I found was a discarded amendment to a chapter of Ecce Homo and wasn't published until the late 1960s.
His use of language was so coarse that at first it was deemed by his editor that he must already have descended into madness by the time he wrote it, and it was kept out of Ecce Homo for that reason.

That's why it's never clever to discuss something when you have no idea of what you are talking about. You know, they say that "there's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows and who trips you up and laughs when you fall"...

Do you know WHO discarded several parts of "Ecce Homo"? Heinrich Köselitz and Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Hint: the book was published 9 years after the death of Nietzsche by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Köselitz (who worked for her). His editor worked for Nietzsche's sister and they decided that the comments against her were not going to be published.
During the 60's there was a revision of the original manuscripts and the books he didn't publish during his life were re-published without the edition of Köselitz and Nietzsche's sister.
Of course, you would have known such thing if you happened to be a person who has actually read his works... But you prefer to make ignorant and laughable comments about something that you have never read.

Nietzsche certainly would be considered a 'racist' by today's standards

Would be? His books are still there and he is certainly not considered a racist by today standards (i.e, Germany has a strong policy against racism... nobody ever suggested that his books should be banned there).
If you want to talk about an imaginary Nietzsche, then you are free to say whatever you imagine... If you are talking about his books, then I do not know anyone who has read them and thinks they are racist... Especially when he is quite explicit about his opposition to the racist ideas that existed during his times.

and I'm not saying that to try to get into a discussion about his work, because I never was all that interested in him or his work and therefore I don't have a whole lot to say about it.

We can agree there. See? Reaching an agreement is not so hard. I agree: you don't have a lot to say about this subject, mostly because you are giving opinions about books that you have never touched (and you naively request "links").

I'm speaking only about the attitude of a man who was alive during the late 19th century -- using him as a symbol of that era -- and saying the attitude of a European man from that age, in this case Nietzsche's, would align more with my outlook of the world today than with yours.

Would? Again? His Weltanschauung has nothing in common with your ideas, silly Nazi.
Of course, that's if you are talking about his books... If you are talking about an imaginary Nietzsche who agrees with you, then you are free to think any idiocy that you want... In the same way that you can consider that if Bach was alive today he would be composing Oi! music and Mozart would be a DJ.
I don't know what kind of music Bach would be composing today... I can talk about the music he composed when he was alive.... and it is certainly not Oi!
In the same way, Nietzsche's ideas have nothing in common with your views.

And from that I'm saying it's not a great leap for me to "claim him", if I wanted him,

I think it's somehow a leap into the void to "claim" an author that you have not even read!
Then again, if you are talking about his books, his ideas and your ideas have no points of contact and are even opposed.

because the majority of his views and my views, the fundamental stuff, would likely match up.

Would again? His "fundamental stuff" (as you call it) doesn't match at all your "fundamental stuff" (though you should write a book titled "my fundamental stuff" and explain your views, I am sure a lot of readers are VERY interested in your "fundamental stuff").

Unless you think in 2019 he would be carrying 'refugees welcome' banners and wearing 'this is what a feminist looks like' t-shirts, or whatever.

Would... Would... Would.
You seem to love your imaginary Nietzsche... You should focus on the real Nietzsche that actually existed and take a look at the attitude he had towards racists during his lifetime.
If not, ask the Imaginary Wagner if the imaginary Nietzsche does no longer think that he is a racist asshole.

He's already mine.

Is he yours? Maybe you should do something audacious: visiting a bookstore and getting there his complete works.... and reading them.

99% of the European canon is. I don't need to jump through hoops to attempt to make the views of these writers align with mine, because they already do.
And when I refer to "my views", I mean my actual views and not the Nazi caricature you're trying to paint.

Are we talking about your imaginary friends again or actual writers???? Oh... Your imaginary friends who agree with you!
You paint the Nazi caricature very well, I don't need to do your job... nor I want to do that job.

Whether he was an "anti-Semite" or not -- another term used only by the dishonest or the undiscerning -- is irrelevant to me. He didn't live in a world where Israel existed, he didn't live to see the age of mass-media or the USA as a world superpower as it is now.

He wasn't anti-semite... Do you want a link??? I suggest you to read his books or keep your mouth shut (unless you don't mind being an idiot, though I am getting that you don't mind).
Are you one of those weirdos who likes to say phrases such as "If Jesus was alive today, he would make America great again?"

Regarding Nietzsche's work, if you want to send me some stuff from him which holds up as anti-racist in this day and age (let's see how many hoops you have to jump through to find it), then I'll be happy to take a look at it.

O.K... No problem: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Friedrich+Nietzche
Read ALL his books and then we may have something to talk about.

And I would still maintain that in all probability his views and my views would be more in sync than his would be with yours.

The imaginary Nietzsche would be a lot of things that you want... the problem is that the REAL Nietzsche was none of the things that you want him to be.

Anyway... if Plato was alive, he would show you his middle finger.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

urbanus is so out of his depth

 

[Anonymous]

Links to back up what I wrote? I didn't know I was talking to a millenial teen.
The links I want to provide you are simply telling you that in the same way that you haven't read most of the books by Nietzsche, I have read his complete works... several times. Though I have also read all the books by the philosophical rivals he has chosen (which means Plato, St. Augustine, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer... the list goes on).
You should try something a bit more complicated than a "link"... visiting a bookstore... Though if you are a Nazi who hates books, then use google, but I won't do that for you.



That's why it's never clever to discuss something when you have no idea of what you are talking about. You know, they say that "there's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows and who trips you up and laughs when you fall"...

Do you know WHO discarded several parts of "Ecce Homo"? Heinrich Köselitz and Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Hint: the book was published 9 years after the death of Nietzsche by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Köselitz (who worked for her). His editor worked for Nietzsche's sister and they decided that the comments against her were not going to be published.
During the 60's there was a revision of the original manuscripts and the books he didn't publish during his life were re-published without the edition of Köselitz and Nietzsche's sister.
Of course, you would have known such thing if you happened to be a person who has actually read his works... But you prefer to make ignorant and laughable comments about something that you have never read.



Would be? His books are still there and he is certainly not considered a racist by today standards (i.e, Germany has a strong policy against racism... nobody ever suggested that his books should be banned there).
If you want to talk about an imaginary Nietzsche, then you are free to say whatever you imagine... If you are talking about his books, then I do not know anyone who has read them and thinks they are racist... Especially when he is quite explicit about his opposition to the racist ideas that existed during his times.



We can agree there. See? Reaching an agreement is not so hard. I agree: you don't have a lot to say about this subject, mostly because you are giving opinions about books that you have never touched (and you naively request "links").



Would? Again? His Weltanschauung has nothing in common with your ideas, silly Nazi.
Of course, that's if you are talking about his books... If you are talking about an imaginary Nietzsche who agrees with you, then you are free to think any idiocy that you want... In the same way that you can consider that if Bach was alive today he would be composing Oi! music and Mozart would be a DJ.
I don't know what kind of music Bach would be composing today... I can talk about the music he composed when he was alive.... and it is certainly not Oi!
In the same way, Nietzsche's ideas have nothing in common with your views.



I think it's somehow a leap into the void to "claim" an author that you have not even read!
Then again, if you are talking about his books, his ideas and your ideas have no points of contact and are even opposed.



Would again? His "fundamental stuff" (as you call it) doesn't match at all your "fundamental stuff" (though you should write a book titled "my fundamental stuff" and explain your views, I am sure a lot of readers are VERY interested in your "fundamental stuff").



Would... Would... Would.
You seem to love your imaginary Nietzsche... You should focus on the real Nietzsche that actually existed and take a look at the attitude he had towards racists during his lifetime.
If not, ask the Imaginary Wagner if the imaginary Nietzsche does no longer think that he is a racist asshole.



Is he yours? Maybe you should do something audacious: visiting a bookstore and getting there his complete works.... and reading them.



Are we talking about your imaginary friends again or actual writers???? Oh... Your imaginary friends who agree with you!
You paint the Nazi caricature very well, I don't need to do your job... nor I want to do that job.



He wasn't anti-semite... Do you want a link??? I suggest you to read his books or keep your mouth shut (unless you don't mind being an idiot, though I am getting that you don't mind).
Are you one of those weirdos who likes to say phrases such as "If Jesus was alive today, he would make America great again?"



O.K... No problem: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Friedrich+Nietzche
Read ALL his books and then we may have something to talk about.



The imaginary Nietzsche would be a lot of things that you want... the problem is that the REAL Nietzsche was none of the things that you want him to be.

Anyway... if Plato was alive, he would show you his middle finger.

Thanks for making me waste time reading a 1,000 word comment when you had absolutely nothing to say, other than "I've read everyone's collected works and you haven't", which you then proceed to mention approximately 25 times.

That's what I get for giving you the benefit of the doubt. People like you make me laugh when you try to intimidate people by talking about how many books you've read. Maybe the fact that your head is full of the words of other people rather than your own is why you're incapable of forming an original thought? Instead you glide by on "I've read the collected works of all these writers" as if people are supposed to be awestruck by you for that reason. I've heard of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy, but this may the first time I've encountered someone trying to appeal to their own authority.

It's not enough. Your post was dripping in arrogance, sure, but it offered no rebuttal to anything I've said. "I've read the collected works of Plato" wasn't a rebuttal and I don't see how it was relevant other than giving you an opportunity to pump out your chest.
That sort of attitude is the epitome of "millennial teen". But like I've said, you lack discernment, so even if you have read all those collected works I don't believe it's done much for you -- other than making you needlessly arrogant when you evidently have nothing to be arrogant about.

Your entire persona, the eternal teenager, appeals to the likes of @rifke and that's about it -- that whole "no reason talk about the books I read but still I do" semblance of an identity that Morrissey grew out of 25 years ago. Go and PM @rifke about French films and maybe your half a personality and her half a personality can join together and create a full personality. I'm sure you've seen all the French films too, she'll love that. It's easy to read collected works etc. when you have all the time in the world because you have no family of your own and therefore no real purpose to your existence.

But then you always were a smug c*** and I've torn you to shreds on other threads before. Like when you first signed up and you were prattling on and on about "corresponding with an English writer", but refused to name the writer because people on other websites before used personal information of yours to find out your identity and bully you. The reason being that nobody likes you, wherever you go. I wonder why. You tend to rub people the wrong way by having too high an opinion of yourself. It wasn't enough to make you question your own behaviour though -- it was all someone else's fault in your estimation, but I figured out fairly quickly that the problem in fact lay with you.

So after I tore you to shreds I thought that had got rid of you, and you did go dark for a while. Yet here you are again, telling words on your screen to visit a bookstore. It's very sad that this is all you have to cling to at your age. Are you sure I'm not just the shadows in your cave? Plato would laugh at you from beyond the grave, if you were relevant enough to be noticed, which you're not. This is the last time I'll notice you too, and anything you write hereafter will receive tg;dr, so I don't have to subject myself to another 1,000 word post of humorless nothingness from you.

 

[vegan cro spirit 111]

Links to back up what I wrote? I didn't know I was talking to a millenial teen.
The links I want to provide you are simply telling you that in the same way that you haven't read most of the books by Nietzsche, I have read his complete works... several times. Though I have also read all the books by the philosophical rivals he has chosen (which means Plato, St. Augustine, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer... the list goes on).
You should try something a bit more complicated than a "link"... visiting a bookstore... Though if you are a Nazi who hates books, then use google, but I won't do that for you.



That's why it's never clever to discuss something when you have no idea of what you are talking about. You know, they say that "there's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows and who trips you up and laughs when you fall"...

Do you know WHO discarded several parts of "Ecce Homo"? Heinrich Köselitz and Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Hint: the book was published 9 years after the death of Nietzsche by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Köselitz (who worked for her). His editor worked for Nietzsche's sister and they decided that the comments against her were not going to be published.
During the 60's there was a revision of the original manuscripts and the books he didn't publish during his life were re-published without the edition of Köselitz and Nietzsche's sister.
Of course, you would have known such thing if you happened to be a person who has actually read his works... But you prefer to make ignorant and laughable comments about something that you have never read.



Would be? His books are still there and he is certainly not considered a racist by today standards (i.e, Germany has a strong policy against racism... nobody ever suggested that his books should be banned there).
If you want to talk about an imaginary Nietzsche, then you are free to say whatever you imagine... If you are talking about his books, then I do not know anyone who has read them and thinks they are racist... Especially when he is quite explicit about his opposition to the racist ideas that existed during his times.



We can agree there. See? Reaching an agreement is not so hard. I agree: you don't have a lot to say about this subject, mostly because you are giving opinions about books that you have never touched (and you naively request "links").



Would? Again? His Weltanschauung has nothing in common with your ideas, silly Nazi.
Of course, that's if you are talking about his books... If you are talking about an imaginary Nietzsche who agrees with you, then you are free to think any idiocy that you want... In the same way that you can consider that if Bach was alive today he would be composing Oi! music and Mozart would be a DJ.
I don't know what kind of music Bach would be composing today... I can talk about the music he composed when he was alive.... and it is certainly not Oi!
In the same way, Nietzsche's ideas have nothing in common with your views.



I think it's somehow a leap into the void to "claim" an author that you have not even read!
Then again, if you are talking about his books, his ideas and your ideas have no points of contact and are even opposed.



Would again? His "fundamental stuff" (as you call it) doesn't match at all your "fundamental stuff" (though you should write a book titled "my fundamental stuff" and explain your views, I am sure a lot of readers are VERY interested in your "fundamental stuff").



Would... Would... Would.
You seem to love your imaginary Nietzsche... You should focus on the real Nietzsche that actually existed and take a look at the attitude he had towards racists during his lifetime.
If not, ask the Imaginary Wagner if the imaginary Nietzsche does no longer think that he is a racist asshole.



Is he yours? Maybe you should do something audacious: visiting a bookstore and getting there his complete works.... and reading them.



Are we talking about your imaginary friends again or actual writers???? Oh... Your imaginary friends who agree with you!
You paint the Nazi caricature very well, I don't need to do your job... nor I want to do that job.



He wasn't anti-semite... Do you want a link??? I suggest you to read his books or keep your mouth shut (unless you don't mind being an idiot, though I am getting that you don't mind).
Are you one of those weirdos who likes to say phrases such as "If Jesus was alive today, he would make America great again?"



O.K... No problem: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Friedrich+Nietzche
Read ALL his books and then we may have something to talk about.



The imaginary Nietzsche would be a lot of things that you want... the problem is that the REAL Nietzsche was none of the things that you want him to be.

Anyway... if Plato was alive, he would show you his middle finger.

No amount of editing could hide the insanity contained in Ecce Homo FFS
'why am i so wonderful' 'why am i so smart' oy vey.
same type of insanity you see in Skinny and his puppets.

Cosima Wagner thought Nietzsche went insane from too much masturbation.
Plato would have had Nietzsche shot for atheistic rantings and ravings.

 

[The Truth]

Thanks for making me waste time reading a 1,000 word comment when you had absolutely nothing to say, other than "I've read everyone's collected works and you haven't", which you then proceed to mention approximately 25 times.

That's what I get for giving you the benefit of the doubt. People like you make me laugh when you try to intimidate people by talking about how many books you've read. Maybe the fact that your head is full of the words of other people rather than your own is why you're incapable of forming an original thought? Instead you glide by on "I've read the collected works of all these writers" as if people are supposed to be awestruck by you for that reason. I've heard of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy, but this may the first time I've encountered someone trying to appeal to their own authority.

It's not enough. Your post was dripping in arrogance, sure, but it offered no rebuttal to anything I've said. "I've read the collected works of Plato" wasn't a rebuttal and I don't see how it was relevant other than giving you an opportunity to pump out your chest.
That sort of attitude is the epitome of "millennial teen". But like I've said, you lack discernment, so even if you have read all those collected works I don't believe it's done much for you -- other than making you needlessly arrogant when you evidently have nothing to be arrogant about.

Your entire persona, the eternal teenager, appeals to the likes of @rifke and that's about it -- that whole "no reason talk about the books I read but still I do" semblance of an identity that Morrissey grew out of 25 years ago. Go and PM @rifke about French films and maybe your half a personality and her half a personality can join together and create a full personality. I'm sure you've seen all the French films too, she'll love that. It's easy to read collected works etc. when you have all the time in the world because you have no family of your own and therefore no real purpose to your existence.

But then you always were a smug c*** and I've torn you to shreds on other threads before. Like when you first signed up and you were prattling on and on about "corresponding with an English writer", but refused to name the writer because people on other websites before used personal information of yours to find out your identity and bully you. The reason being that nobody likes you, wherever you go. I wonder why. You tend to rub people the wrong way by having too high an opinion of yourself. It wasn't enough to make you question your own behaviour though -- it was all someone else's fault in your estimation, but I figured out fairly quickly that the problem in fact lay with you.

So after I tore you to shreds I thought that had got rid of you, and you did go dark for a while. Yet here you are again, telling words on your screen to visit a bookstore. It's very sad that this is all you have to cling to at your age. Are you sure I'm not just the shadows in your cave? Plato would laugh at you from beyond the grave, if you were relevant enough to be noticed, which you're not. This is the last time I'll notice you too, and anything you write hereafter will receive tg;dr, so I don't have to subject myself to another 1,000 word post of humorless nothingness from you.

Replies with thousand word comment citing nothing. #NoLinksBro

 

[The Truth]

Morrissey's next book should be called Ecce Huma.

 

[The Chameleon]

Replies with thousand word comment citing nothing. #NoLinksBro

I only wanted citations when he was referring to something supposedly said or done by historical figures, because I wasn't willing to take his word alone for it. He apparently thinks of himself as a high authority in these matters, but I don't think of him that way, so I wanted him to back up what he was saying.

My reply had #NoLinksBro because I wasn't attempting to give a history lesson, nor referring to anyone else's work, so there was nothing to cite. If I were speaking about Nietzsche's relationship with his sister, or Hitler's sexual fetishes, then I would provide #links so people could make up their own mind about whether I was telling the truth or not. Just as courtesy if nothing else. We all have biases and may interpret the same evidence in different ways.

Because of Oh My's biases I already deemed him unreliable and had questions about his ability to separate truth from rumour and fiction. He has only reinforced this feeling with each additional post. Imagine considering a request for citations to be a "millennial teen" request like he did. At least when I've had disagreements with you, you didn't immediately start referring to all the collected works of different authors you've read, while thinking that it meant that you automatically won the argument or something without having to put any work in.

You should know all about #LinksBro anyway, since you tried to debunk the work of Charles Murray with a link to one 'theconversation' article, and you started this whole Nietzsche discussion by linking to one Telegraph article. You're the O.G. link poster, yet you try to lampoon my request for the same thing. Your dishonesty knows no bounds, does it?

 

[She-Camel]

Nietzsche's writings are all about self empowerment so they can easily be claimed by those of the right because it's the opposite of collectivism.

You're kidding yourself if you think he was a fan of the Jews. As a tribe they stick together like glue and believe in tribe empowerment and the belittling of other tribes. He only admired their Machiavellianism.

Would you (or someone) be willing to explain the difference between the tribalism of the Jews (or Zionists), and that of of the white nationalist/anti-semitic strains of the alt-right? And if it's the tribalism that turned Nietzsche off to the Jews, as you say, then if he were still around today, wouldn't that also prevent him from being a "fan" of the alt-right, as well? (And so you know, I'm not a neo-con nor an SJW open-borders etc. advocate -- just trying to understand viewpoints.)

 

[The Truth]

 

[She-Camel]

That was really good, thanks for posting it.

 

[The Truth]

urbanus is so out of his depth

"The Chameleon" aka TURBANUS aka etc, etc is not URBANUS.

 

[reelfountain]

Would you (or someone) be willing to explain the difference between the tribalism of the Jews (or Zionists), and that of of the white nationalist/anti-semitic strains of the alt-right? And why would Nietzsche be a "fan" or on the side of either, then? (And so you know, I'm not a neo-con nor an SJW open-borders etc. advocate -- just trying to understand viewpoints.)

The alt-right are virtually all Jews themselves - or at least all Zionists. They call this kind of thing 'controlled opposition' - it's basically the bad guys running both sides. Yes, there are quibbles between the mainstream and the alt-right, but that's all they are, small quibbles. The main picture is pro-Zionism, pro-capitalism and ultimately pro-globalism all around.

I actually believe that the identity politics that has polluted the left was actually a ploy by the establishment to destroy the left. And they fell for it and embraced it whole. Because remember, once upon a time the left was the only political group to stand up for the ordinary working man - and the establishment doesn't want anyone doing that. The working man must not be given power. He is a pawn and must stay one. So at the moment you have the left turned into a clown-show of crazy identity politics and the right run by shills who are working for the zionists. That's why if you are an independent thinker it is easy to see through both sides and weigh up what makes sense - which is neither the left or right as 'they' present it to us in its current form, because both sides have been infiltrated and polluted.

The alt-right might seem convincing because admittedly they talk about some of the 'forbidden subjects' (to lure you in) but ultimately do not put your full trust in them - just keep an eye. And ask yourself who funds the alt-right? For example, Tommy Robinson in the UK rants about how Muslims are invading the UK (which obviously is true and not good) while he himself is being funded by the people (Zionists) who lobby to let these Muslims into the UK to foment problems that they can then pay Tommy to whip people up about. Crazy? Yes it is. But ultimately it gives people a taste of Muslims and then they will support Israel and the Zionists who run the whole show. And you may ask, why does Tommy do this? I'll tell you, it's because like a lot of people, he prefers the Zionists to Muslims. And that's what they want - they want us to take sides. Basically: Do you want these crazy prehistoric freaks running the show or do you want us taking care of things?

If you try to operate outside of this system you will be shut down. In the UK there was an anti immigration party called the BNP that around nine years ago was getting very successful. Its leader Nick Griffin was neither pro-Zionist or pro-Palestine. This kind of thinking is not allowed. The party was offered massive funding at one point by the zionists if they would do two things: slag off the Muslims not the Jews, and also don't ever slag off the banks (because we run them). Griffin refused and within two years the party was virtually dead. Mi5 infiltrated it and destroyed it from within. Suddenly just by coincidence another anti-immigrant party UKIP became massive. It was obviously funded and promoted for this very purpose - BNP out, UKIP in. The establishment know what they are doing, they control these things.

As for Nietzsche, he was a physically weak and ill man who spent half his life in bed debilitated with bad headaches. His writings are basically the result of a delusion of grandeur of being strong, an uberman in all senses of the word - the opposite of what he was in real life. His writings are like one long wind-up. They are actually very comical and playful and far too many people take them way too seriously. He was definitely that rare thing: a German with a sense of humour. I love reading Nietzsche and find him buoyant, bolstering and hilarious. If around now, he would definitely neither be a fan of the left or right. He's more like a loner with a grand manifesto to kill off all the weak - to kill off all the things he hated about himself.

 

[Anonymous]

The alt-right are virtually all Jews themselves - or at least all Zionists. They call this kind of thing 'controlled opposition' - it's basically the bad guys running both sides. Yes, there are quibbles between the mainstream and the alt-right, but that's all they are, small quibbles. The main picture is pro-Zionism, pro-capitalism and ultimately pro-globalism all around.

I actually believe that the identity politics that has polluted the left was actually a ploy by the establishment to destroy the left. And they fell for it and embraced it whole. Because remember, once upon a time the left was the only political group to stand up for the ordinary working man - and the establishment doesn't want anyone doing that. The working man must not be given power. he is a pawn and must stay one. So at the moment you have the left turned into a clown-show of crazy identity politics and the right run by shills who are working for the zionists. That's why if you are an independent thinker it is easy to see through both sides and weigh up what makes sense - which is neither the left or right as 'they' present it to us in it's current form, because both sides have been infiltrated and polluted.

The alt-right might seem convincing because admittedly they talk about some of the 'forbidden subjects' (to lure you in) but ultimately do not put your full trust in them - just keep an eye. And ask yourself who funds the alt-right? For example, Tommy Robinson in the UK rants about how Muslims are invading the UK (whick obviously is true and not good) while he himself is being funded by the people (Zionists) who lobby to let these Muslims into the UK to foment problems that they can then pay Tommy to whip people up about. Crazy? Yes it is. But ultimately it gives people a taste of Muslims and then they will support Israel and the zionists who run the whole shit show. And you may ask, why does Tommy do this? I'll tell you, it's because like a lot of people, he prefers the zionists to Muslims. And that's what they want - they want us to take sides. Do you want these crazy prehistoric freaks running the show or do you want us taking care of things?

As for Nietzsche, he was a physically weak and ill man who spent half his life in bed debilitated with bad headaches. His writings are basically the result of a delusion of grandeur of being strong, an uberman in all senses of the word - the opposite of what he actually was in real life. His writings are like one long wind-up. They are actually very comical and far too many people take them way too seriously. He was definitely that rare thing: a German with a sense of humour. I love reading Nietzsche and find him hilarious. He would definitely neither be a fan of the left or right. He's more like a loner with a grand manifesto to kill off all the weak - to kill off all the things he hated about himself.

Any links bro?