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

[Lord Shinra]

****WARNING: VERY CRITICAL REPLY. THIS WILL OFFEND SOME PEOPLE****

Feminazism backfired because women are inherently dumb and they lack the balls (no pun intended) to be able to think 15 seconds into the future. The leaders of the feminazi movement, no matter how mannish they wanna seem and act (or overact. I have never seen a REAL DECENT Man act in some of the ways they do), the fact of the matter is they're still women.

Communism in its old Soviet form failed because it tried to control the core of a person, something that nobody and nothing can control. Once it stopped doing so and worrying more about equality with services (instead of everything) they regained some power in some areas (some parliaments in Europe have sizable Communist/Socialist minorities).

 

[Falcon]

I have a question even though it's a little off topic. Why are we always categorizing ourselves and other human beings in this manner? What do we achieve by doing this? Why must there be death to the concept of the individual?

 

[Potbelly]

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.

No, religion and word and thoughts of anything god-like was created by the rulers, not the poor people. The poor people simply were controlled by the strong people in the name of God and religion.

The smart people control the dumb people with religion.

Look at suicide bombings, it's all the dumbasses who go to blow themselves up. You don't see Osama blowing himself up and leading a suicide calvary do you? Religion is used to control the masses. Accept this. Nietzche didn't do anyhting useful...accept that as well.

Look at wars. It's all the dumbasses who are sent to fight while the leaders reap the rewards won with the poor's blood.

Accept this fact of our world. Go read some history books and not just N's philosophy. Go read some history book and realize that people have always wanted more CONTROL. Read William McNeill's "Rise of the West" and you will realize what I am talking about. I'm NOT talking about bullsh1t philosophy. I'm talking about FACTS in HISTORY. Just accept it. You can't argue with the facts. If you want to argue, e-mail the world famous professors who are experts in the fields they were writing about.

 

[KarmaSutra]

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)

No. You need to read and then re-read what I wrote. Nietzche is not a classic Existentialist. If you want semantics, Soren Kierkegaard (the only Christian based Existentialist) and Sartre are the only true Existentialists that hold any weight. Nietzsche is quotable only due to his Ubermensch theory and his Nazi attachments. Though Nietzsche does hold a personal rights opinion it is in no way true Existentialism and his hold that the Will to Power is an expression of one's love for themselves or lack thereof, is blindingly real and synonimous with his belief in morality of virtue. Besides, no one can really tell what he wrote and what has been forged by his sister.

I've taken a course on Existentialism from the foremost Professor on the subject, Dr. Robert Solomon so it's not as if I'm talking out of my ass.

 

[Bonhomme]

Feminazism backfired because women are inherently dumb and they lack the balls (no pun intended) to be able to think 15 seconds into the future. The leaders of the feminazi movement, no matter how mannish they wanna seem and act (or overact. I have never seen a REAL DECENT Man act in some of the ways they do), the fact of the matter is they're still women.

It hasn't failed because women are stupid or lacking in foresight, but because they are women and men are men. A movement that originally stood for equal rights got perverted to stand for equality (sameness, if you will), and that's where it went off into la-la land.

 

[BannedGod]

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.

Dude. Religion might have freed black people, but at this point, it had already did his damage. "masters" or strongs were already gone. This is not even related to Nietzsche. When I said religion damaged society (I don't remember my exact words and too lazy to read) I meant it changed society as it used to be, and reversed the values that the strong had created to make them look like evil while the weak looked like good people. And Christianity did backfire on the weak because, yes they did manage to get rid of the strongs, but christianity condemns not only the strong, but the strength in people. And weak also had strength, so it condemned them too. Sorry I don't know how to explain it better but I do not fully understand why yet

No, religion and word and thoughts of anything god-like was created by the rulers, not the poor people. The poor people simply were controlled by the strong people in the name of God and religion.

The smart people control the dumb people with religion.

Look at suicide bombings, it's all the dumbasses who go to blow themselves up. You don't see Osama blowing himself up and leading a suicide calvary do you? Religion is used to control the masses. Accept this. Nietzche didn't do anyhting useful...accept that as well.

Look at wars. It's all the dumbasses who are sent to fight while the leaders reap the rewards won with the poor's blood.

Accept this fact of our world. Go read some history books and not just N's philosophy. Go read some history book and realize that people have always wanted more CONTROL. Read William McNeill's "Rise of the West" and you will realize what I am talking about. I'm NOT talking about bullsh1t philosophy. I'm talking about FACTS in HISTORY. Just accept it. You can't argue with the facts. If you want to argue, e-mail the world famous professors who are experts in the fields they were writing about.

Jesus was a ruler? wow I did not know that. I think you are the one that's wrong bro... Jesus created christianism, and a couple centuries later, roman emperors accepted as their own because they had already "lost" against it. And I do not disagree when you say that religion has become a pretext for war. It did. But it was not created by leaders for that at start. Unless Jesus was a king and a ruler? What about Muhammad? Was he a ruler too? And the Jewish, who basically created God as Christian, Muslims and Jewish know it today. Were they rulers?

No. You need to read and then re-read what I wrote. Nietzche is not a classic Existentialist. If you want semantics, Soren Kierkegaard (the only Christian based Existentialist) and Sartre are the only true Existentialists that hold any weight. Nietzsche is quotable only due to his Ubermensch theory and his Nazi attachments. Though Nietzsche does hold a personal rights opinion it is in no way true Existentialism and his hold that the Will to Power is an expression of one's love for themselves or lack thereof, is blindingly real and synonimous with his belief in morality of virtue. Besides, no one can really tell what he wrote and what has been forged by his sister.

I've taken a course on Existentialism from the foremost Professor on the subject, Dr. Robert Solomon so it's not as if I'm talking out of my ass.

Meh it's quite possible, but I've read from various sources that he was very influential for existentialist (although that doesn't mean he was one, so I guess you are right).

 

[Bonhomme]

... if one assumes Jesus as most people know him even existed ...

 

[BannedGod]

... if one assumes Jesus as most people know him even existed ...

There are historical proofs that he existed. He simply wasn't the son of God (well I don't believe he was, kudos to you if you do believe he was)

 

[Ripper]

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.

You are right about one thing. There isa lot you dont' understand about Nietzsche. Your stereotyping of Christianity (Not 'Christianism' - where the hell did you get that from?) is laughable. Go read some Reformation theology before you start making claims that 'all you have to do is ask pardon and you're forgiven'. It's far more nuanced and complicated than that.

Concerning Nietzsche himself, no, he was categorically NOT an anti-semite and was actuallyt quite disgusted by anti-semites. His views have been distorted to serve the needs of Nazism.

According to Nietzsche, yes, the rise of Christianity is down to the weak or what he prefers to deem the 'bad' because it is the only way of gaining the upperhand over the 'good'/strong by shaming their practices. The ascetic priest is the main propagator of this.

You mention in a later post that Nietzsche was tracing an origin. No, no, no,no,no. What Nietzsche was doing in Genealogy of Morality (and it's difficult to define it positively) was the exact oppositeof tracing a pedigree. His whole project was to show that history is not connected in a nice, perfect linear fashion. The project was a type of new historico-philosophical method and the life work of Michel Foucault after him though eventually abandoned as the genealogist cannot successfully find a place for himself within his system.

Nietzsche's polemics were directed against the post-Enlightenment philosophers who traded the same stock as Christians. Truth. In his eyes, atheists are just as bad as Christians because they are still ruled by the will-to-truth and not the will-to-power.

 

[Microphone Fiend]

I was thinking about doing a correlation between the master/slave morality and men/women, but you beat me to it. Could have tidied it up a bit, but the general idea is exactly what i was thinking. Of course you really did not emphasize your points well enough, hence all the criticism.

Also I can clarify a few things with you:
a) God Is Dead: Nietzsche never believed God was 'alive', he just thought we as human beings outlived the need for the lie, similar to how a child outgrows the idea of Santa once he is taught compassion and is nice.

b)The last men have not come into this world yet, the last men is a thought experiment about living life being fully content. Lacking desire to better yourself. It is in 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra" that he tackles this in-depth. When Z tries to teach the villagers about the Overman, no one is interested, so he tries to show them the idleness of the Last Man, but the people are so out of touch that they beg Z to teach them how to be the Last Men. That is when Z realizes that they are not ready for the teaching of the Overman.

c) The Overman is a man who knows the rules and sees the hypocrisy and conditioning to morality and how relative it all is, but he also is focused on eternal self improvement/amor fati (loving fate)/and the eternal recurrence

d) Me and Epic had a little discussion on Nietzsche earlier this month (http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=134289&page=2) so you can check that out if you want

e) N does not believe that Christianity was the downfall of man, being that he was the son of a preacher and used to bring kids to tears with the powerful sermons he gave on the playgrounds, he realizes the power and good things that religion has achieved, but he does not think that it can be used anymore and is holding man back from becoming overman.

 

[Charppy]

Wow! LOL! I'm not Mr. Intelligent here and nor will I ever try to convince anyone I am but, who gives a crap about Niet**** or whoever that is? I've read some of the book of Pook and I think some of you are killing this whole thing. I'm not saying that Pook is this god-like being but based on what I've read Pook I think would laugh at all of this. You're doing everything he said was moronic. Why analyze and analyze and philosophize and intellectualize and all this crap?
I'm no damned ladies man (I wish I was) and I whine a lot cause I suck when it comes to women but I think Pook would say "It's just a woman". It's a woman! Why do we complicate it so damned much with all this philisophical crap? I don't know. Perhaps I shouldn't have read this post cause it certainly is no benefit to the ones who are looking to learn anything of value..or well I should say it's of no value to me. Goes back to that DNA reference I guess.

 

[Bonhomme]

The "historical proofs" Jesus existed were questionable at best: gleaned from second-hand information or material (such as Josephus' writings) which was extensively edited ex-post-facto. Remember that hardly any original documents from ~ 2000 years ago are still in existence. Almost all are Christian translations, typically having passed through multiple generations of translation and editing.

I have a friend who as researched this stuff extensively -- probably more than everyone on this board combined -- and has a book nearing publishing that could make quite a stir. But seeing as how I don't want their magnum opus to be pirated, I'll only provide the vaguest of details.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Those 'Jesus as a Fraud' books always sell well. They cater to the human ego. 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was out in the late 70's. The same story has been re-told over and over. Nothing new to see here.

Someone pointed out that Nietzsche was equally against religion and atheism. That makes a lot more sense. It also makes religion irrelevant to this discussion, right? Isn't it the Atheists who wave Nietzsche around like a bible? It's pretty funny if he thought they were just as ignorant as the Ned Flanders Christian types.

There are plenty of 'being a man' stories in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. The prevailing ethic among men was 'fvck with me, and I'll kill you.' A disobedient woman was a disgrace to her family, and if she pissed off her husband enough, he would boot her ass out of the tent to go starve to death in the desert. And men typically kept as many women as they could afford to feed. Tough luck to any of them who didn't like it. There's one scene in Genesis where the guy is coming home from work, and his wife is fighting with his concubine over who gets to have sex with him first. Ahh, the good old days...

 

[Sandow]

Those 'Jesus as a Fraud' books always sell well. They cater to the human ego. 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was out in the late 70's. The same story has been re-told over and over. Nothing new to see here.

Someone pointed out that Nietzsche was equally against religion and atheism. That makes a lot more sense. It also makes religion irrelevant to this discussion, right? Isn't it the Atheists who wave Nietzsche around like a bible? It's pretty funny if he thought they were just as ignorant as the Ned Flanders Christian types.

There are plenty of 'being a man' stories in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. The prevailing ethic among men was 'fvck with me, and I'll kill you.' A disobedient woman was a disgrace to her family, and if she pissed off her husband enough, he would boot her ass out of the tent to go starve to death in the desert. And men typically kept as many women as they could afford to feed. Tough luck to any of them who didn't like it. There's one scene in Genesis where the guy is coming home from work, and his wife is fighting with his concubine over who gets to have sex with him first. Ahh, the good old days...

Yea but those are just stories from the Old Testament. It's definitely not something Jesus would ever encourage.

 

[Obsidian]

polygamy is part of the hor matrix

 

[Bonhomme]

Those 'Jesus as a Fraud' books always sell well. They cater to the human ego. 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was out in the late 70's. The same story has been re-told over and over. Nothing new to see here.

There was nothing new to the "life story of Jesus," either. It follows the same pattern as the earlier life stories of Ies Chrishna, Baal, the divine alter-egos of many kings and emperors (uh-oh, I may be giving away too much here), and even Quetalcoatl (born of a virgin in a cave or stable, went away and returned as a great teacher, executed in the manner of the times alongside one or two miscreants, rose from the dead in 3 days, etc.).

That's not to in any way discredit the teachings attributed to "Jesus." If Christianity works for you, all the better for you.

A disobedient woman was a disgrace to her family, and if she pissed off her husband enough, he would boot her ass out of the tent to go starve to death in the desert. And men typically kept as many women as they could afford to feed. Tough luck to any of them who didn't like it. There's one scene in Genesis where the guy is coming home from work, and his wife is fighting with his concubine over who gets to have sex with him first. Ahh, the good old days...

You're joking, right? Actually, the Bible has lots of stories on how to punish slaves and what not. "God" comes across as a spoiled brat and a bully, not even a good man, by evolved, modern standards. But that's how monarchs tended to be at the time it was written, so that just reflects the sort of "leadership" people knew back then. "The Good Book"? ... how many have ever really read it?