A CONVERSATION RE NIETZSCHE

Antiochus Epiphanes:

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.

NN:

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 both the Weenies and the Morons that are most of what is left of the Goyim. Zum Beispiel, the Hollywood History of the Second World War has something for everyone - 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 can't. 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 gentilshomme. 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 or are 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 about 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 ideological 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.

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?"

=======================

Alex Linder:

I read Nietzsche because he's funny.

NN:

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.