Poor magic American performance at the olympics has the US media coping like no tomorrow

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

The homosexual part seems new, though.

This was probably 'discovered' in the 70s, that's when the 'discovery' that the ancient Greeks and Romans were actually all gay and paedophiles was made.

[–][deleted]  (21 children)

[deleted]

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

    Id be interested in reading that if you have a good source. I know that Freddy had a massive sperg fit over the Christian themes in I think Lohengrin -- our learned friends here remind me of him-- and that there was always speculation about his syphilis but I've never read about the homosexual allegations.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Cheers.

      [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

      That book's thesis doesn't make any sense because if it was true Nietzsche would be advocating for slave morality, not attacking it.

      [–][deleted]  (16 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

        Nietzsche made a point about what he calls slave morality. The fact he decided to identify such morality with the core institutionalised morality of his time, christianism, is another point. While christianism do have compassion elements - as every religion not made by some psycho - doesn't really show itself as particularly peaceful one through the history.

        There is no contradiction here. Master morality means valuing personal dignity and greatness, slave morality means valuing that which benefits the weak. The most violent and aggressive group in America right now are leftist "anarchists" who want everyone to grovel before their "social" values. The concept of slave morality does not refer to an inability to act, it refers to identifying with the weak, placing the cause of the weak over the cause of the noble and then justifying action on that basis. I can't see what's so hard to understand about this.

        [–][deleted]  (11 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

          1) christianism was at the core of feudal hierarchy, with the divine right of the kings and the chain of beeing

          Far from an exclusively Christian idea, this was in fact a pagan concept which the Christians strongly opposed for centuries. Pagan leaders had always ruled with divine right and in many cases were considered gods themselves. Two very basic examples would be the Roman and Japanese empires. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the resulting political disintegration and decentralisation also greatly marginalised the Roman Pontiff, so most Christian kings retained both their profane and sacral leadership, as they had during paganism. The Popes were opposed to this, not in favour of it, which is one of the reasons for the strife between clergy and aristocracy, as well as the major conflicts between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire.

          2) Christianity self-identified himself with the god-driven conqueror.

          No idea what this is supposed to mean.

          On the other hand, there's no religion on the earth that says "the strongest has all rights, the weak must be slave" because is severely disfunctional once you get over the initial conquering phase and you need to establish an actual society.

          That's not the point. Every system has to achieve some sort of harmony. The primary values are what's important. In Christianity, this value is mercy. It is a salvation cult. Everyone is fundamentally broken, hopeless, insufficient and incapable of achieving salvation on their own. Even referring to the ultimate goal as "salvation", in contrast to enlightenment, for example, already hints as to the character of the religion. From the Christian perspective, every man - regardless of his personal qualities - is weak and helpless, entirely dependent on mercy and salvation. Does this reflect an aristocratic wolrdview, in your opinion? If not, what worldview does it reflect? It's a downward looking religion. Everyone needs to be saved, but no one can be saved by his own efforts. The responsibility of saving human souls is laid on god, the responsibility of saving humans is laid on the aristocracy. What does this mean for the aristocracy? It means that its justification becomes entirely external and "humanitarian". The higher depends on the lower for its meaning, rather than vice versa. Hence "slave morality".

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            I know Nietzsche. The point is that he was wrong in identifying salve morality with Christianity, and he did this because beeing gay he had resentment towards his gay hating culture.

            Cope.

            2) Christianity self-identified himself with the god-driven conqueror. -> this means that Christianity identified itself as a conquering force led and legitimized by God

            What does this mean? Who is this god-driven conqueror? Are you sure you are not instead referring to the lamb of god, which was slaughtered upon the cross in order to redeem humanity?

            Christianity is a soteriological religion, exactly like mithraism and any other Sun cult.

            Utter nonsense. I don't even know where to start with this. This comparison between Christianity and solar cults is ridiculous and I wish I knew where you people get these ideas from. As to Mithraism, assuming that you are referring to the Mythraic Mysteries, you couldn't be more wrong. Those were esoteric. Christianity is a popular mass religion of completley exoteric character. It's the exact opposite of any mystery religion.

            this can be said about any religion in the world, to various degrees. Gods are stronger than mortals. They rule the afterlife.

            Many religions are not even concerned about the "afterlife" in the basic way that we are used to imagine it in the West. Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism offer a reflection of that. Ancient Western paganism also offered other possibilities. The aforementioned esoteric mystery cults were one alternative. The hero cults are also direct evidence that ancient Western pagans believed humans could stand side by side with the gods - Hercules overcomes death through his own efforts and earns himself a place at Mount Olympus as a deity, for example. Germanic pagans also believed that the warriors who ascend to Valhalla would join the Aesir as brothers in arms during the final days. Moreover, you are missing the point. The focus is what is important. Christianity is a saviour religion - the Christian god is focused on salvation and saving others who need and want to be saved. Everything - the entire Christian cosmology and the purpose of everything - is salvation. The ancient pagan gods have very different concerns. They may respond to certain rituals, worship and prayers, but they have no interest in interfering in human affairs. They simply live their own dignified existence.

            [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            which is one of the reasons for the strife between clergy and aristocracy

            Great point. I would also add Nietzsche's observation of the ressentiment the clergy felt towards the aristocracy.

            [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

            What is that about?

            [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

            This is just false. The aristocracy acted almost completely independent from Christian institutions. Their moral code was a vestige of ancient master morality.

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              The progenitor of the chivalry code was the ancient pagan warrior caste.

              [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              My point is that if he really was gay and resented Christianity because of it, his arguments against it would be slave morality as well, but he didn't do that. None of his arguments against Christianity come even close to suggesting that he was gay.

              Also, what on Earth makes you think I don't know Evola?

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                I don't like his more crackpot ideas, sure.