![There's an easy way to tell if CRT is racist or not. [700x800 - 829KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/BMkS0g.png){kind=link}
Say you are a boomer without saying you are a boomer. You always get so close u/Trash_Panda. I'm beginning to think that you just enjoy well poisoning, Moeshe. Christcucks gonna christcuck. So tell us (((fellow fren))), which jewish rulebook should we be following?
I'm not a boomer. And Western civilization is built on a tradition of spirited, honest discourse and thoughtful philosophical insight. I.E. the exact opposite of everything you do. But since we're on the topic of "Jewish rulebooks" here are some more excerpts from the philosophy National Socialism is built on, that you never want to address for some bizarre reason
Incidentally, Europe owes the Jews no small thanks for making people think more logically and for establishing cleanlier intellectual habits — nobody more so than the Germans who are a lamentably déraisonnable race who to this day are still in need of having their “heads washed” first. Wherever Jews have won influence they have taught men to make finer distinctions, more rigorous inferences, and to write in a more luminous and cleanly fashion; their task was ever to bring a people “to listen to reason.”
— The Gay Science, §348 (Walter Kaufmann translation, 1974)
Nietzsche then went on to describe the overwhelming Jewish over-representation in all fields including finance, academia, law, medicine and more. He uses this as evidence that they are a superior and strong race, and that the naysayers in Europe (namely Germany) should be expelled
“they want and wish rather…to be absorbed and assimilated by Europe…; and this bent and impulse…should be noted well and accommodated: to that end it might be useful and fair to expel the anti-Semitic screamers from the country.”
Given Nietzsche's avid hatred for Christianity it seems like you certainly are a devoted disciple. You argue like a Jew, you deflect like a Jew, you follow an ideology built on a Jewish worshipping philosopher who's goal was to unite Germany and the Jews against Christianity. You check every single box.
Here's some further reading on Nietzsche and the relationship to Hitler's Germany (marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu) and how this Jew loving self-proclaimed antichrist became the gospel of National Socialism.
He may as well be the Jesus of the Nazi party, which is fucking hilarious.
Wherever Jews have won influence they have taught men to make finer distinctions, more rigorous inferences, and to write in a more luminous and cleanly fashion
In otherwords "learn from your enemies", and thats a bad thing why?
The distinction, before you attempt to make it, is we have learned from apparent allies up until very recently. And while formerly they taught the truth of nationalism, even for the semites wretched own purposes, for the last several decades they have done the opposite.
Or would you debate against nationalism, and against that it is good?
But of course, you will instead perhaps attempt to about the question by getting into the weeds instead of answering directly. Or argue about who taught that nationalism, the messenger. Or argue about nationalisms roots.
But never about nationalism itself.
So out with it. Are you, for or against.
Clear answers now. Simple.
I'll give you ten words and no more for an answer. State your assertion. Arguments come after.
You refuse, regardless the argument, regardless the excuse, regardless of the deflection or objection, no matter, then you refuse to clearly state your position at all and all of us are in our right to dismiss you for a philistine or a pharisee with no moral substance to yourself or argument.
In otherwords "learn from your enemies", and thats a bad thing why?
That is very clearly not what Nietzsche is saying, and if you clicked on the link I provided you'd see him vehemently condemning antisemites when some sort out association was made between him and that movement.
So out with it. Are you, for or against.
I am absolutely a nationalist. I don't know where you see some sort of obscurity in my messages. My issue is with the post-enlightenment variety of nationalism the National Socialists ascribe to, which is vehemently anti-religious, boils humanity down to the status of meat robots, and worships identity over ethics.
Identity can play some role, but everything has it's proper place.
The fact that so much of National Socialism derives from such a horrid person's ravings is quite telling.
That guy is further reading? (michaelkalish.com) Who cites four jews on which he base his understanding of nazi ideology and mein kampf?
lmao
I don't know anything about the website owner nor do I give a shit. I picked it because it was a good overview of what occured based on reading I've done previously. Which parts do you take issue with?
your "further reading" link is bullshit. There are quotes from "Will to Power", which is a fake book published by nietzsches sister to becomes endeared to some of those kind of nationalists nietzsche was disgusted of. Besides, it's published under one "Harold Marcuse (en.wikipedia.org)", which is the grandson of one ((( Herbert Marcuse (en.wikipedia.org) ))), e.g. on of the (((inventors))) of the critical theory e.g. cultural marxism. For this you should feel ashamed.
If you want some critical essays about nietzsche written by someone who doesn't like hitler, use those:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/thomas-mann/nietzsche-in-the-light-of-modern-experience/
The guy who wrote them was an open traitor during WW2, and later emigrated into the US, where he was called one of the foremost apologies for stalin. But at least he isn't related to a kike that invented critical theory.
Everything you're saying is over my head but I'll look into it. I don't have enough knowledge about it to "feel ashamed". I appreciate you sharing your insights though, and I'm not really eager to listen to Stalin's favorite apologist.
Isn't this the entire point though? My understanding is his sister was editorializing his writings to make it sound more nationalist than it actually was. As you said, "to becomes endeared to some of those kind of nationalists nietzsche was disgusted of". This is literally what the "further reading" describes, is it not? I'm confused what you're critiquing.
Also, isn't this even more damning evidence for my point? You're saying that his sister, who leeched off Nietsche's writings to become a prominent nationalist figure, these same nationalist writings were published by cultural marxists? How would this be reconciled through a National Socialist interpretation? That sounds even worse
(post is archived)