• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I admit it. I support the ideology behind the Nazis

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
A lot of people have the attention span of gnat so I provided an excellent documentary.
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
71
You also failed to include any details at all. If you would like some discussion maybe you could include a little information?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Though some of Nietzsche's thoughts on man were twisted by the Nazis, I think they were mostly good.
Nietzsche was a self-absorbed jackass, the Nazis just ran with that.

Besides that, the first president of Israel was in on the ethnic cleansing of the territory they declared statehood on, much like Hitler ethnically cleansed Poland to take it for Germany, and Obama is backing Israel while it continues to colonize what little is left of Palestine to this day. That all does seem rather Nietzschean to me, but I'm at a loss as to how anyone with his head on straight can see any good in it.
 
Last edited:

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
You also failed to include any details at all. If you would like some discussion maybe you could include a little information?
To sum up his philosophy he was a strong supporter of strength. He believed in collectivism, aggression, and strong leadership. He believed that the strong should prosper while the weak should be allowed to wither away. This differs with our modern world where the strong have to apologize for being strong, the smart apologize for being smart, and the poor are given benefits which ultimately keeps them poor. Also, in a Nietzschian world, an organization such as the UN would not exist.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Most people instantly associate hatred and mass murder with the Nazis. Either you are being jokingly provocative or are a quite warped individual.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Nietzsche was a self-absorbed jackass, the Nazis just ran with that.

Besides that, the first president of Israel was in on the ethnic cleansing of the territory they declared statehood on, much like Hitler ethnically cleansed Poland to take it for Germany, and Obama is backing Israel while it continues to colonize what little is left of Palestine to this day. That all does seem rather Nietzschean to me, but I'm at a loss as to how anyone with his head on straight can see any good in it.
Look at Africa...the people there were far more prosperous under colonization than they are today.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
You also failed to include any details at all. If you would like some discussion maybe you could include a little information?
Maybe this from WIKI will help:

Morality
In Daybreak Nietzsche begins his "Campaign against Morality".[42] He calls himself an "immoralist" and harshly criticizes the prominent moral schemes of his day: Christianity, Kantianism, and utilitarianism. However, Nietzsche did not want to destroy morality, but rather to initiate a re-evaluation of the values of the Judeo-Christian world.[43] He indicates his desire to bring about a new, more naturalistic source of value in the vital impulses of life itself.[citation needed]

In both these works, Nietzsche's genealogical account of the development of master-slave morality occupies a central place. Nietzsche presents master-morality as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. Here, value arises as a contrast between good and bad, or between 'life-affirming' and 'life-denying': wealth, strength, health, and power (the sort of traits found in a Homeric hero) count as good; while bad is associated with the poor, weak, sick, and pathetic (the sort of traits conventionally associated with slaves in ancient times).

Slave-morality, in contrast, comes about as a reaction to master-morality. Nietzsche associates slave-morality with the Jewish and Christian traditions. Here, value emerges from the contrast between good and evil: good being associated with other-worldliness, charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and subservience; evil seen as worldly, cruel, selfish, wealthy, and aggressive. Nietzsche sees slave-morality born out of the ressentiment of slaves. It works to overcome the slave's own sense of inferiority before the (better-off) masters. It does so by making out slave weakness to be a matter of choice, by, e.g., relabeling it as "meekness."

Nietzsche sees the slave-morality as a source of the nihilism that has overtaken Europe. In Nietzsche's eyes, modern Europe, and its Christianity, exists in a hypocritical state due to a tension between master and slave morality, both values contradictorily determining, to varying degrees, the values of most Europeans (who are "motley"). Nietzsche calls for exceptional people to no longer be ashamed of their uniqueness in the face of a supposed morality-for-all, which Nietzsche deems to be harmful to the flourishing of exceptional people. However, Nietzsche cautions that morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Exceptional people, on the other hand, should follow their own "inner law." A favorite motto of Nietzsche, taken from Pindar, reads: "Become what you are" (cf. to Kierkegaard's assertion, in Vol. 2 of Either/or, that in aesthetics you become what you become, whereas in ethics you are what you are).

[edit] Death of God, nihilism, perspectivism
Main articles: God is dead, nihilism, and perspectivism
The statement "God is dead," occurring in several of Nietzsche's works (notably in The Gay Science), has become one of his best-known remarks. On the basis of it, most commentators[44] regard Nietzsche as an atheist; others (such as Kaufmann) suggest that this statement reflects a more subtle understanding of divinity. In Nietzsche's view, recent developments in modern science and the increasing secularization of European society had effectively 'killed' the Christian God, who had served as the basis for meaning and value in the West for more than a thousand years.

Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth.[45] Instead we would retain only our own multiple, diverse, and fluid perspectives. This view has acquired the name "perspectivism".

Alternatively, the death of God may lead beyond bare perspectivism to outright nihilism, the belief that nothing has any importance and that life lacks purpose. As Heidegger put the problem, "If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself."[46] Developing this idea, Nietzsche wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra, therein introducing the concept of a value-creating Übermensch. According to Lampert, "the death of God must be followed by a long twilight of piety and nihilism (II. 19; III. 8). [...] Zarathustra's gift of the superman is given to a mankind not aware of the problem to which the superman is the solution."[47]

[edit] Will to power
Main article: Will to power
An important element of Nietzsche's philosophical outlook is the "will to power" (der Wille zur Macht), which provides a basis for understanding motivation in human behavior. But this concept may have wider application, as Nietzsche, in a number of places, also suggests that the will to power is a more important element than pressure for adaptation or survival.[48] In its later forms Nietzsche's concept of the will to power applies to all living things, suggesting that adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, less important than the desire to expand one’s power. Nietzsche eventually took this concept further still, and transformed the idea of matter as centers of force into matter as centers of will to power. Nietzsche wanted to dispense with the theory of matter, which he viewed as a relic of the metaphysics of substance.[49] One study of Nietzsche defines his fully-developed concept of the will to power as "the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation" revealing the will to power as "the principle of the synthesis of forces."[50]

Nietzsche's notion of the will to power can also be viewed as a response to Schopenhauer's "will to live." Writing a generation before Nietzsche, Schopenhauer had regarded the entire universe and everything in it as driven by a primordial will to live, thus resulting in all creatures' desire to avoid death and to procreate. Nietzsche, however, challenges Schopenhauer's account and suggests that people and animals really want power; living in itself appears only as a subsidiary aim—something necessary to promote one's power. In defense of his view, Nietzsche appeals to many instances in which people and animals willingly risk their lives in order to promote their power, most notably in instances like competitive fighting and warfare. Once again, Nietzsche seems to take part of his inspiration from the ancient Homeric Greek texts he knew well: Greek heroes and aristocrats or "masters" did not desire mere living (they often died quite young and risked their lives in battle) but wanted power, glory, and greatness. In this regard he often mentions the common Greek theme of agon or contest.

In addition to Schopenhauer's psychological views, Nietzsche contrasts his notion of the will to power with many of the other most popular psychological views of his day, such as utilitarianism, which claims that all people fundamentally want to be happy (Nietzsche responds that only the Englishman wants that), and Platonism, which claims that people ultimately want to achieve unity with the good or in Christian neo-Platonism, with God. In each case, Nietzsche argues that the "will to power" provides a more useful and general explanation of human behavior.

[edit] Übermensch
Main article: Übermensch
Another concept important to an understanding of Nietzsche's thought is the Übermensch. While interpretations of Nietzsche's overman vary wildly, here are a few of his quotes from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Prologue, §§3–4):

I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? ... All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth.... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss ... what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,879
126
To sum up his philosophy he was a strong supporter of strength. He believed in collectivism, aggression, and strong leadership. He believed that the strong should prosper while the weak should be allowed to wither away. This differs with our modern world where the strong have to apologize for being strong, the smart apologize for being smart, and the poor are given benefits which ultimately keeps them poor. Also, in a Nietzschian world, an organization such as the UN would not exist.
That is your opinion of what sums up his philosophy.

From the WIKI I quoted above it would seem that he was not a supporter of strength, but of a morality that flows from life affirming principles that differentiate between good and bad, with those qualities, wealth strength health and power, characteristic of the life affirming, while poor weak sick and pathetic, naturally associated with bad, and all this to replace the Christian morality of apology via the transmogrification of weakness into meekness, a virtue, in a good vs evil duality rather than a good vs bad duality more suited to a God is Dead world.

Man is a bridge that leads to a greater man, but not in the mastery of others, but in the attainment of those qualities that lead to mastery of life.

He is replacing, I think, a dying morality with a new one based on reason and an analysis of what affirms life. When subtleties of that order are grafted onto an egotist, you get a justification for evil, because there is no ego in the world that isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
That is your opinion of what sums up his philosophy.

From the WIKI I quoted above it would seem that he was not a supporter of strength, but of a morality that flows from life affirming principles that differentiate between good and bad, with those qualities, wealth strength health and power, characteristic of the life affirming, while poor weak sick and pathetic, naturally associated with bad, and all this to replace the Christian morality of apology via the transmogrification of weakness into meekness, a virtue, in a good vs evil duality rather than a good vs bad duality more suited to a God is Dead world.

Man is a bridge that leads to a greater man, but not in the mastery of others, but in the attainment of those qualities that lead to mastery of life.

He is replacing, I think, a dying morality with a new one based on reason and an analysis of what affirms life. When subtleties of that order are grafted onto an egotist, you get a justification for evil, because there is no ego in the world that isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.
lol.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Also, in a Nietzschian world, an organization such as the UN would not exist.
What would you have for international law, or just anarchy between nations?

Look at Africa...the people there were far more prosperous under colonization than they are today.
I'm looking at Africa currently being exploited by neo-colonization, striping them of their natural resources while pretending to respect their sovereignty. What are you seening as better in that?
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
71
Look at Africa...the people there were far more prosperous under colonization than they are today.
Oh yes, they were far more prosperous than today. Maybe because the colonization helped ruin them? For example, in Sierra Leone the British replaced the locally grown cotton with more profitable long staple cotton. The long staple cotton did not offer the protection to the land the short staple cotton did, and the rains in africa destroyed the farm land. They also introduced rice and irrigation, which replaced rice growing in mangrove swamps. The irrigation salinated the land and destroyed their yields. Same thing in Uganda, those benevolent saints replaced their millet crops with cotton through force because they could sell cotton, and got the same result they depleted the land. In Malawi the british forced them to use ridge irrigation like the british used in britain, and yet again the difference between Malawi and british soil caused a disaster. Malawi soil failed to hold the ridging because it was more sandy.

Can we please stop assuming that we the superior white man know what is good for those stupid black people. We have restructured their governments through the IMF and world bank, destroyed their markets with Tariffs and free food, bribed their governments for natural resources and then we go bakc and blame them for their crappy situation? We need to leave them the hell alone, this stupid assumption that we know better and we can help them is just plain dumb. If we want to help them; ask them how much money they need, and then give it to them and trust them. If you don't trust them, don't give. But for the love of god stop assuming were better than them.

Source for my rant on colonial farming:
Easterly, William Russell. White man's burden why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.
 
Last edited:

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
I prefer Hedonism with a large dose of Neo-paganism. We show the weak a good time :D

... not real big on the Fascists
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
Oh yes, they were far more prosperous than today. Maybe because the colonization helped ruin them? For example, in Sierra Leone the British replaced the locally grown cotton with more profitable long staple cotton. The long staple cotton did not offer the protection to the land the short staple cotton did, and the rains in africa destroyed the farm land. They also introduced rice and irrigation, which replaced rice growing in mangrove swamps. The irrigation salinated the land and destroyed their yields. Same thing in Uganda, those benevolent saints replaced their millet crops with cotton through force because they could sell cotton, and got the same result they depleted the land. In Malawi the british forced them to use ridge irrigation like the british used in britain, and yet again the difference between Malawi and british soil caused a disaster. Malawi soil failed to hold the ridging because it was more sandy.

Can we please stop assuming that we the superior white man know what is good for those stupid black people. We have restructured their governments through the IMF and world bank, destroyed their markets with Tariffs and free food, bribed their governments for natural resources and then we go bakc and blame them for their crappy situation? We need to leave them the hell alone, this stupid assumption that we know better and we can help them is just plain dumb. If we want to help them; ask them how much money they need, and then give it to them and trust them. If you don't trust them, don't give. But for the love of god stop assuming were better than them.

Source for my rant on colonial farming:
Easterly, William Russell. White man's burden why the West's efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print.

The large majority of Black africa was under European rule for only 60-80 years...your assuming alot if you think White people are responsible for what Africa is today based off of that tiny timeframe of rule.

And if your theory was correct, and not just a repeat of what some people expect everyone to believe [usually from talking heads on tv/books]. It would be rather obvious to look at other areas which were colonized just like Africa was, and colonized for far longer than Africa and expect worse results.

That would include India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, and a shitton of other countries outside of Africa. Most of those were under a European nation's rule for atleast 400 years, yet most of those countries are doing fine, and a few even rival our own when it comes to technology, cleaniness and unemployment/crime [Singapore, Hongkong]. And the ones that are not doing fine ? They are still doing better than Subsaharran African countries.

Oh and they also had, and HAVE more 'colonial' farming going on than Africa ever has. Ever heard of Java coffee ? Its from Indonesia and introduced by the Dutch and farmed there. Yet thier not a starving country.

Africa's real problem with 'farming' isnt white people, thats a nice copout. Its the native people there doing slash and burn on unproductive jungle land, farming it for a year or two until nothing grows there anymore, then moving on to burn more jungle. Rinse and repeat. Zero management of thier current farmland is why the Saharra desert is spreading south in countries bordering that desert. And is why famine is so common in other African countries like Ethiopia where they destroyed the good farmland they did have by not managing it right.

But I guess its easier to just lay blame on whitey and not on the people there, or those running those countries. Afterall, with people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe who killed most of his countries white population [who also were the large scale farmers, who also fed the entire population and then some] you really do have a strong point. Surely in that case it was the white man's fault that he was feeding that entire country with his evil modern technology farming, and its his fault that black people are starving there now since Mugabe had them all killed.

The opposite of Sub-Saharran African countries of course, is China and how they are handling thier desertification problem. Instead of blaming an entire other race, or other people in general. They blame themselves for allowing huge dust storms to cover half thier country since they mismanaged thier land. Thier reaction ? Not blaming whitey, but sending out scientists to diagnose and fix the problem. Pretty amazing that.

Anyways, i blame the natives in Sub-Africa for most of thier problems. If other colonized countries lack the same problems that they have, then the argument doesnt hold up in my book. And blaming others for them doesnt help anything but just keeps them complacent to blame others and do jackshit for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Talk about a sensationalist headline. Oh well, maybe that's what P&N needs because seems seem slow since the switch to new software.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,631
3,126
126
Nietzsche was a self-absorbed jackass, the Nazis just ran with that.

Besides that, the first president of Israel was in on the ethnic cleansing of the territory they declared statehood on, you and your ethnic cleasning hyperbole/diatribe...we all know where you stand when it concerns israel9Palestinian sympathizer)...but for the life of me dude.....WTC7?? How could you let yopur pants down on that....you slammed any and all credibility that you might have had...rofl...hahahaha much like Hitler ethnically cleansed Poland to take it for Germany, and Obama is backing Israel while it continues to colonize what little is left of Palestine to this day. That all does seem rather Nietzschean to me, but I'm at a loss as to how anyone with his head on straight can see any good in it.
:)
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
To sum up his philosophy he was a strong supporter of strength. He believed in collectivism, aggression, and strong leadership. He believed that the strong should prosper while the weak should be allowed to wither away. This differs with our modern world where the strong have to apologize for being strong, the smart apologize for being smart, and the poor are given benefits which ultimately keeps them poor. Also, in a Nietzschian world, an organization such as the UN would not exist.

In a 'Nietzschian world' you would have been killed and eaten LONG ago.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY