Pook and Nietzsche (WARNING: May offend Pook lovers and religious people)

[BannedGod]

WARNING: LENGTHY POST BUT WORTH TO READ

NOTE: By Slave and Master Nietzsche didn't mean it literally. He meant basically the strong and the weak, those who can express and live their desires, and those who couldn't

so yea I've been studying Nietzsche in class, especially the book "On the Genealogy of Morality", and as much as I respect and love Pook's work, I realized that he isn't a genius - he is simply a guy who understood Nietzsche quite well and applied his theories to the world of seduction. To explain why, I'll first explain the theory of Nietzsche on the creation of morality as we know it today (killing = bad, helping = good)

Now, keep in mind that I am no expert of Nietzsche, and also I studied him in French, so I might not be translating the right terms all the time. Also, I'll obviously be oversimplifying it, since it is so much more complicated than I'll make it to be

The / / / is just to make your reading easier

Explaining Nietzsche
Ok Nietzsche explains that in ancient times, there used to be a power struggle between Masters and Slaves. Masters were the strong people, who could express their desires, while the slaves were the weak people, who couldn't express their desires. / / / Because the strong could express their desires, they naturally became dominant. Because of that, they started creating values (strength = good, power = good, wealth = good, slaves = dirt, slaves = poor, slaves = bad - Now remember, this is centuries ago). / / / However, and I won't explain why because it's quite complicated, the slaves began to feel resentment for the masters, and eventually this gave them such a desire of vengeance that they created religion, labeling the masters as evil and the slaves as good. This is what gave birth to the Christian values of today as we know them (helping others = good, living in poverty = good). / / / Now, and I won't explain why, this had a domino effect on the Masters (think of Rome and Jesus), and eventually, all the Masters became slaves, and when this happened, Nietzsche has a famous sentence for it (which is important): God is dead. However, once again I do not understand why, religion was also detrimental for Slaves (keep this in mind). / / / When all the masters were gone (according to Nietzsche it happened after the French Revolution, no clue why though), God wasn't necessary anymore since the Slaves had won, so God died. / / / At this point, mankind became, as Nietzsche called them and us, the "last men" (derniers hommes in french, so I might not be traducing it right), which is, in his opinion, even worse than slaves. Why? Because slaves had traces of strength in them. Last men, however, simply live life "as it should be lived" according to today's values, and do not try to change this. / / / Nietzsche despised that, and he taught us about the Übermensch (Super Man, or Over Man). This is basically a Man that is over mankind as we know it, even better than the Masters. It is a Man who lives what he is meant to be, and who is over the morality of today's society (there are more aspects obviously, but I do not know them). So this is Nietzsche's philosophy (a very very small part of it).

Cliffs
- Dominance of slaves by masters
- Slaves feel resentment, create religion
- Religion destroys all masters, and they become slaves
- Religion is also detrimental to slaves
- After the French revolution, men become "The Last Men"
- Nietzsche wants us to become the Übermensch


Just with that, do you see the link between Nietzsche and Pook? I find it so obvious, but I'll still explain the link I made. It might not be so obvious to someone who isn't familiar with Nietzsche. Before I do, let me make some links:

Weak = Women and AFC (according to Pook)
Masters = Men of old days and Jerks (because they have some traces of strength in them)
Übermensch = The Man Pook wants us to become

Explaining Pook
Pook puts a lot of emphasis on how, in the old days, Men acted like Males, and thus were dominant, while females where females, and being dominated by males. / / / However, recently, females (he doesn't use the term resentment, which is important to Nietzsche, but no matter) have created feminism, and this, like religion, has changed society for the worse. Religion has transformed masters into slaves, feminism, according to Pook (and I agree), has transformed Men into effeminate men. / / / However, it's quite obvious that this backfired against women, just like religion backfired against the slaves (even if I didn't know why, it did). / / / Now we are stuck with two major types of men in our world, and a rare third type. The first type is the AFC, which is basically letting his life being dictated by today's "laws" in seduction. Sounds familiar to the Last Men? / / / Then we have the Jerk, who is weak, but however, he shows some traces of strength. That's why the Jerk is a typical Slave. Now, Pook despise both AFC and Jerks, but he clearly despise AFC much more. / / / FINALLY, we have what Pook wants of us, the MAN, the Übermensch. The MAN is a MAN who does not obey to the stupid laws of seduction, but instead obeys to a much more fundamental law, the law of sexuality. Quite similar to Nietzsche's Übermensch, no?

Cliffs
- Dominance of Women by Men in the old days
- Women create feminism
- Feminism destroys Men as we knew them, and they become much more effeminate (slaves => AFC => Last Men)
- Feminism backfired on women because they still want to date a MAN, not an effeminate dude
- After feminism, men become "The Last Men" (AFC)
- Pook wants us to become the Übermensch in the dating world, which is a MAN

Sorry again if this is a long post, but yea. Pook wasn't a genius. I think he simply understood Nietzsche well (much better than I did) and applied it to the world of Dating. He was right though, but he didn't really come up with anything. He simply used Nietzsche's idea. Just like Freud was very "nietzscheien", so is Pook. I hope this will demystify him a little.

 

[Pimp101]

That sounds very interesting I can see the link you're making. I might have to finally give in and read Nietzsche, been putting it off for a while.

 

[BannedGod]

That sounds very interesting I can see the link you're making. I might have to finally give in and read Nietzsche, been putting it off for a while.

Cool! It's Very complicated though, and to understand him well, you need a very good knowledge of earlier german philosophers and greek philosophers (says my philosophy teacher). However, I'm currently studying him on my own because I am fascinated by him. If you want to give him a go, start with either On the Genealogy of Morality, or with Thus Spoke Zarathustra

 

[ketostix]

I can see the link you made as well. however, it doesn't take a genuis to figure out that life is competition and people will try to take resources from another group. So I don't think he had to read Nietzsche to come up with his theories. Although he probably did get his ideas from Nitzsche.

But as you explained Nietzsche's theory, not saying your summary is right or wrong just going with it, N. had it all wrong. He's partially right about christanity but Judaism is the basis of Christianity (not to make a religious thread, there's a point here). In the past religion was believed and used by the leaders. They were religious leaders and considered to be the next thing to god. They had slaves and sanctioned slavery in those societies. Slaves didn't create religion out of resentment. Besides a lot of early chritian were wealthy and had status in their society previously.

I'm not saying Nietzche's was wrong and by implication Pook was wrong or that I disagree or agree with either of them. I'm just saying both of them could be coming to a correct or incorrect conclusion but the logical steps they use to support their conclusion aren't exactly accurate, and do call into quetion their conclusions.

 

[Potbelly]

Er...Actually wasn't religion used by the LEADERS to control the MASSES?

If you read Timothy Earle's book about how chiefs come to power, you will see that religion is simply ideological power, which is used to justify military power. The leaders used religion to appear "god-like" and so people would follow them and believe what they said without question.

Slaves didn't create anything...N is not on the ball about this. Religion is/was all about the strong people controlling the masses of dumb weak people. The only thing slaves created were .... actually nothing. However, serfs of the feudal times DID create things...things like tools, but no religion man. That was the work of the higher ups.

 

[BannedGod]

By Slaves and Masters, Nietzsche didn't mean literally slaves and masters. In french the terms are translated better from german. In french it's the weaks and the strongs, however in english I think the only term used is slaves and the masters, but basically it means the strong, who can express their desires, and the weak, who suppress them.

And yes religion was eventually used to control the mass, but at first it was created as a tool of vengeance of the strong (I'll stop using the term Master and Slave since it got you guys confused). However, think about it. Who created Christianism? A Roman emperor? Nope, it was a poor, Jewish fellow. It took time for Christianism to triumph over the Roman culture as we knew it.

Er...Actually wasn't religion used by the LEADERS to control the MASSES?

If you read Timothy Earle's book about how chiefs come to power, you will see that religion is simply ideological power, which is used to justify military power. The leaders used religion to appear "god-like" and so people would follow them and believe what they said without question.

Slaves didn't create anything...N is not on the ball about this. Religion is/was all about the strong people controlling the masses of dumb weak people. The only thing slaves created were .... actually nothing. However, serfs of the feudal times DID create things...things like tools, but no religion man. That was the work of the higher ups.

What I italicized just proves Nietzsche even more. The Strong created values (like I have said before), while the weak, with the creation of religion, did not create anything (no values). They reversed the Strong's values to turn them into ideologies.

 

[Potbelly]

Actually, to add on and clarify, slavery did make democracy possible in ancient Greece. I guess that is a contribution of slavery to society.

Read up on Ancient Rome/Greece if you want to learn more about this.

 

[ketostix]

By Slaves and Masters, Nietzsche didn't mean literally slaves and masters. In french the terms are translated better from german. In french it's the weaks and the strongs, however in english I think the only term used is slaves and the masters, but basically it means the strong, who can express their desires, and the weak, who suppress them.

And yes religion was eventually used to control the mass, but at first it was created as a tool of vengeance of the strong (I'll stop using the term Master and Slave since it got you guys confused)

It's still all wrong, the tendency for humans to believe in a god or to have a moral compass isn't totally given to them by any other person. It's human nature, instinctive. Just like it's nature to compete for resources. Just like it's nature for a tiger to always be dangerous and for a lamb to be more docile. And within any higher order species, individual variance or personality occurs. Nietzsche was anti-religious, amoral, and his theories fromed part of the basis of nazism. Those beliefs are actually very similar to feminism's beliefs.

 

[BannedGod]

It's still all wrong, the tendency for humans to believe in a god or to have a moral compass isn't totally given to them by any other person. It's human nature, instinctive. Just like it's nature to compete for resources. Just like it's nature for a tiger to always be dangerous and for a lamb to be more docile. And within any higher order species, individual variance or personality occurs. Nietzsche was anti-religious, amoral, and his theories fromed part of the basis of nazism. Those beliefs are actually very similar to feminism's beliefs.

Yes it is, but think about this: Compare roman mythology to Christianity. Roman Gods are strong Gods according to the Roman beliefs. I don't exactly know why, unfortunately, but I know that they are strong Gods. These Gods were created by the romans, who were also Strongs. Therefore it's only logical that the gods will be strong as well. On the other hand, we have God of Christianity, who is weak, simply because he is a forgetful God (you sin, all you have to do is ask pardon and you will be graced, or whatever). Being able to forgive is one of the reasons that weaks were, well weaks. And God of Christianity was created to that image. However, in the end, who survived? Our God, or Roman gods? Believing in God might be natural, but the day the weaks created a God in their image, that's where the morality of slave triumphed (as Nietzsche calls it), or the morality of the weak or of Christianity.
I'm sorry I can't go much into depth, but there is a lot that I do not understand about Nietzsche.

As for Nietzsche being the basis of nazism, you clearly don't know him enough. Yes his book the will to power was favored by Hitler and considered nazist, but ONLY because it's his sister that wrote it from parts of text he had begun to write before he became insane (syphilis) and she rearranged everything to make it sound nazist because she was one.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question: Why is it wrong to kill another human being? And don't tell me because we are not meant to do so, which is bull****, or because it's bad for the survival of the race, because it is also bull**** (if it were the case, why is it so important that the race survives?). This was what Nietzsche tried to explain. He traced the origin of morality as we know it, and attributed it to the creation of religion, which was an act of vengeance from the Weaks. And yes Nietzsche was an anti-Semite, he openly admitted it (I'm pretty sure at least), but not in the same way as Hitler

Also, ask yourself this question: Why is it th helping others is the good thing to do? After all, if you help someone ONLY because it is the right thing to do, often you are doing it on your behalf, and therefore hurting yourself for lack of a better term (I'm French, don't hate my lack of fancy vocabulary hahah). So why is it that's it's the "good thing to do"?

On a sidenote, the point of this post was not to debate against Nietzsche, because as you can see, I do not know enough of him to defend his point of view, but just to show the striking similarities between Pook and him... But feel free to keep arguing, I'll do my best to defend Nietzsche's point of view, even though I gotta go work real soon.

 

[ducaro]

gah. wrong, right, religion, god, good, bad, blah, blah - all created by humanity for humanity to help alleviate the issues of insecurity and fear. This comes from prehistoric times.

It's all in your mind. Now please don't term me an 'athiest' or a 'thiest' or an 'agnostic' - I can't relate to any of those words and they mean nothing to me.


This world is as real as it gets. Just look around you. We are in control of the situation and the misery that surrounds us. (no, I am not including natures brutal forces that destroy a lot from time to time)

OH btw, there is nothing 'wrong' or 'right' about killing another human being! If you still want to know if its 'wrong' or 'right', just ask yourself if you are OK with the fact that some strange person is going to kill you in the next four hours.

Will you sit down and say 'oh well, I can't wait' or will you start thinking about how to escape the event? Its as simple as that. No organism wants death or pain and hence all of us should be working on NOT killing eachother - cuz nobody wants it! ( especially for the fact that we humans have brains and can think logically, and are not animals. Yet some of us, prefer to think limited and not utilize the mental strength we have)

 

[KarmaSutra]

Lest we not forget . . .

As I live an Existentialist point of view, I can attest that Neitzsche is often erringly referred to as an Existentialist when in fact he was more a staunch Nihilist. Here is a man who was deathly afraid of women and died, some say, a virgin. Though he may have visited prostitutes is unclear. I'll go even deeper than Neitzsche and say that Aleister Crowley had a much clearer and more concise philosophy within the writings of The Book of the Law regarding following one's path in life.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."​

Encyclopedic volumes have been written over this sentence. What it means is that the only thing which matters in one's life is to find your true purpose, your calling and follow that no matter what. Disregard all moral, religious and societal opinions and attain that which is "Conversation with one's Holy Guardian Angel", your true spiritual purity. Nothing else matters. I have been a devotee of Thelema for many, many years and it's philosophy and doctrines have proved to be most enlightening because it gives you the release of freedom and the abject gain of clarity and purpose whereas modern organized religion preaches denial and abstinence, Thelema and the offshoots of Crowley's occult schools teach to go ahead and run towards your future then live for yourself and regret nothing.

I'm going to start a thread soon about Sex Magick in the Thelemic tradition and it's use for higher states of consiousness and personal attainment in regard to the DJ/ALPHA Male paradigm.

 

[Epic]

Pook never claimed to be a genius, Pook always said that he was just Pook, and that people seemed to fail to understand that. People hold him up like a god. Now, I believe that he is a great teacher and an example of the correct mindset, but other than that who cares? Pook is still writing to this day, just not here. It's obvious through his old and new posts that he's just a gifted writer who is educated in the liberal arts and puts it to good use. He has learned from all areas of the humanities. I understand that you had good intentions with this post and that's great, I'm not criticizing exactly, but I just think it could have been even better if you hadn't focused on the connections with Pook. In doing this people are going to focus more on Pook and less on the message. Anyway, good post man. Kudos.

 

[Kev07]

Hey thanks, my philosophy final is tomorrow

 

[Obsidian]

Pook does mention Neitzche in some of his writings.

Nonetheless, your analogy is deeply flawed because black people (and all previous types of underclass people) are better off now thanks to the liberalization of trade and politics. In contrast, women are worse off now because of feminism. Judeo-Christian morality hasn't degraded society in any way, whereas feminism/matriarchy are destroying society.

 

[Sandow]

Interesting post. I can see the correlation between Religion and Power. And I can see how Religion (christianity) can be detrimental to the DJ way of life. ie: abstinence, sexual ideas=sin, submit and obey as you're told, treat others the way you would want to be treated, power, control, and wealth is looked down upon, etc. the list goes on. We definitely live in paradox where societal means has only confused us in what our objuective in life is.

 

[JDA70]

You are right your post is offensive.
I agree with some points on here
However this has got to be one of
the worst posts I've ever read here.

 

[BannedGod]

KarmaSutra Nietzsche is actually considered somewhat the father of existentialist. If you knew more about him, you'd know that he is far from a nihilist, and he is actually against that philosophy. If I remember correctly, Schopenhauer was in fact a nihilist; Nietzsche wasn't.

And you said: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law... That sounds very much like the definition of Nietzsche of the overman (well what you interpreted from it in your post)

Pook never claimed to be a genius, Pook always said that he was just Pook, and that people seemed to fail to understand that. People hold him up like a god. Now, I believe that he is a great teacher and an example of the correct mindset, but other than that who cares? Pook is still writing to this day, just not here. It's obvious through his old and new posts that he's just a gifted writer who is educated in the liberal arts and puts it to good use. He has learned from all areas of the humanities. I understand that you had good intentions with this post and that's great, I'm not criticizing exactly, but I just think it could have been even better if you hadn't focused on the connections with Pook. In doing this people are going to focus more on Pook and less on the message. Anyway, good post man. Kudos.

Never said he didn't write good stuff. I was just pointing out that what he wrote is very similar to some theories of Nietzsche

Pook does mention Neitzche in some of his writings.

Nonetheless, your analogy is deeply flawed because black people (and all previous types of underclass people) are better off now thanks to the liberalization of trade and politics. In contrast, women are worse off now because of feminism. Judeo-Christian morality hasn't degraded society in any way, whereas feminism/matriarchy are destroying society.

Black people had nothing to do with the power struggle that created religion. They did get better off thanks to liberalization of trade and politics, like you said, but this happened WAY after religion was created. When this happened, the whole society was already become "Slaves" (or weak). I don't see the correlation you made there... Now, you say Judeo-Christian morality hasn't degraded society? On what bounds can you say this? What makes you say that society is better now than it was before? And furthermore, what makes you think that "slaves" (or once again, weaks) were better off once religion was created? After all, religion did backfire on them. I *think*, if you read carefully the Bible, you are not even suppose to have desires (correct me if I'm wrong). However, weaks also have desires, they just simply do not express them. However, even having the desires is a punishable offense according to Christianism.

RemoteControl you got it wrong bro: Slaves worshipped god on the basis that he was superiour...
This gave slaves the comfort that god could awnser their prayers
because he was more powerful than them.

That's not the case. They didn't worship God because he was more powerful than them. God was/is as weak as them. Period. God was nothing more than a mean of vengeance to them

 

[BannedGod]

You are right your post is offensive.
I agree with some points on here
However this has got to be one of
the worst posts I've ever read here.

Heh sorry if you didn't enjoy the read, I enjoyed writing it

 

[MooseGod]

I'm pretty sure that Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche and a lot of his philosophy (though twisted by Hitler) helped form the ideals of the Nazi party.

 

[Obsidian]

Black people had nothing to do with the power struggle that created religion. They did get better off thanks to liberalization of trade and politics, like you said, but this happened WAY after religion was created. When this happened, the whole society was already become "Slaves" (or weak). I don't see the correlation you made there... Now, you say Judeo-Christian morality hasn't degraded society? On what bounds can you say this? What makes you say that society is better now than it was before? And furthermore, what makes you think that "slaves" (or once again, weaks) were better off once religion was created? After all, religion did backfire on them. I *think*, if you read carefully the Bible, you are not even suppose to have desires (correct me if I'm wrong). However, weaks also have desires, they just simply do not express them. However, even having the desires is a punishable offense according to Christianism.

Well, its obvious from your response that you haven't read much of the Bible so it would be silly for me to argue theology with you.

But you said that the emancipation of the blacks was one example of religion backfiring on the weak. In reality, religion and democratization have helped the blacks out dramatically (by getting them freed!).

Feminism has backfired on its advocates big-time (same with communism and most other corrupt ideologies), but Christianity has never really backfired on anyone. It does promote justice for the weak, but I don't see how it hurts the weak in any way once they've obtained that justice.