State of the World Address.

It seems I forgot to indicate that the (working) title of the post that began with this clarification was “Re Statement, Re Address, Re World.”

How extraordinary, if you cannot recognise that the ideal society of Hitler wasn’t really that different from that of Nietzsche, as both held an overall elitist attitude, which probably explains the type of person who is attracted to his philosophy.

It is not the mass that invents and not the majority that organizes or thinks, but in all things only and always the individual man, the person.
– Adolf Hitler

The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. This preservation comprises first of all existence as a race, and thereby permits free development of all the forces dormant in this race.
– Adolf Hitler

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude…
– Adolf Hitler

Thus, in principle, it [national socialism] embraces the basic principle of Nature and believes in the validity of this law down to the last individual. It sees not only the different value of races, but also the different value of individual men. From the mass it extracts the importance of the person, and thus, in contrast to Marxism with its disorganizing effect, it acts in an organizing way.-- Adolf Hitler

Nietzsche never quite spelled out what he meant by Übermensch/The Superman did he. For Heidegger and others, it represented humanity that transcended itself, whilst for the Nazis it became a distinctive image of the master race.

My main dissatisfaction with N was his damaged attitude towards women, probably due to his failed love affair with Lou Salome, which inflamed his insulting slapping down of women. No doubt he was a complex man, but a man I find difficult, if not impossible, to use as a mentor or seek as an example of the so called ‘Superman’. Which in itself is ludicrous to begin with.

“So dangerous are women that they must be pressed back into the cage of nineteenth-century Apollonian’s chauvinism”.

That says it all.

You’re a terrible quoter. What’s the source of those Hitler quotes, for example? And that last quote is an inaccurate quote from page 373 of Julian Young’s Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography (a terrible book, judging from that page. You got the “Apollonian’s” from the preceding sentences).

Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, My Struggle

It is widely acknowledged that N adopted the same misogynistic imagery of Arthur Schopenhauer’s “On Women”, which is notorious for denouncing the women of Germany.

You choose not to acknowledge the man’s obvious shortcomings.

Oops, I guess I should read up on “my Hitler”!

“It is widely acknowledged”… I have read quite a bit from Schopenhauer on women, incidentally, and though there are certainly strong similarities, there are also very strong differences. Schopenhauer inveighs against women; Nietzsche is ever the gentleman.

I do not just not consider Nietzsche’s stance toward women to be a shortcoming; I’ve always regarded it as something most fundamental and most praiseworthy about his philosophy! Consider this thread, for example: https://beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/human_superhuman/conversations/topics/241

Here’s an excerpt from a private conversation I recently had on Facebook (only from my side of the dialogue):

::

The mainstream religion is now secular humanism which is somehow believed to be supported by science.

Faith means different things for Protestants and Catholics.
Thomas More, for example, was a Humanist and a Catholic. He chose death over forced conversion to Anglicanism (a hybrid form of Protestantism and Catholicism). Protestantism, in which every man is his own priest, quite naturally leads to Humanism, where every man decides for himself what religion (if any) he practices.

I think sex (or “gender”) difference is the one to focus on these days. Controversial, but not like racism. I also think it’s (one of) the most fundamental natural human inequality/-ies. Men choosing to be “disposable”: that’s like a noble kind of martyrdom, which may actually regain men the respect they used to get.
Christianity can even be justified (historically) in this context. “Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way.” (Pope Ratzinger.) Is the voluntarily “disposable” male not the epitome of creative reason manifesting as love?

Yeah, Christianity is a major historical manifestation of “the Patriarchy”, man!

And it was the White Male Protestant who led the West (and thereby the globe) to secular humanism, feminism, etc.
All that can be seen as a great self-sacrifice by the “disposable” male–not to mention the white male…

The “disease” Liberal Protestantism can be construed as a noble self-misunderstanding. Men like us now realize that it’s an error, that the most beneficent act would consist of the reinstatement of Patriarchy.
A new Aryan subordination of the indigenous Goddess (Moody spoke of the Black Goddess counter to Graves’ White Goddess. I’ll try to find some of Moody’s posts on the Super-White-Man for you).

::

By “Aryan” I was also distinctly thinking of definitions like this one:

Aryan - a civilized follower of Vedic culture; one whose goal is spiritual advancement.” (Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Glossary.)

The division of the human race into males and females is of course much, much deeper than into the various races: the former antedates even the emergence of hominid species by far.

Here’s an excerpt from the thread of which I was especially thinking when I spoke of “some of Moody’s posts” etc. (the square brackets and typos are Moody’s own):

::

Goethe’s contention that the Feminine draws us upward is frequently ridiculed by Nietzsche. No, the dark-drives of White-Woman draw us down; the Superwhiteman [Zarathusra], disdaing the womanish, must climb to the solitary heights where the air is clear and all that is smells feminine and sphinxlike is far below.

The constant danger to the Higher White Man is actually related to the White Woman; it is this - that the Higher White Man may become extinct.

We know from Nietzsche that [White]Woman is a danger [immediate image of the blonde blue-eyed Lou von Salome] to the Super-White-Man.

The Zarathustran White Man is told endlessly by Nietzsche that he must seek solitude.
He takes his six solitudes [inbetween down-goings] before his final seventh solitude which is [White] Death.

Can you not see what a danger to the White Race this Solitude is?

How can the White Race be reproduced by its finest speciemens [SuperWhiteMen and Women] if the White Man has to flee the sphinxations of the White Woman!

And also, by her Darkness, White Woman actually flouts her Whiteness.

Disgust, disgust.

So the Zarathustrian Whiteman is in constant danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the mediocre, the prodigeous and gregarious many-too-many. Hic niger est, as Nietzsche quotes from Horace.

To that end, what he calls the “hope of a Pure European Race” must be engendered by Eugenics.

Compared to Shakespeare, Nietzsche’s treatment of women is mild. And yet everyone, women included, adore Shakespeare, while castigating Nietzsche for his so called “misogyny.”

Shakespeare was more generous in his ascribing of power. To call a power terrible is very much not to belittle it.

In Nietzsche’s case, the day I read a woman, or man for that matter, write at his level, I’ll take their opinion on his misowhatever. But it also seems a stretch to say that the man who equated all of philosophy with a woman hates women.

How so?

Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.

shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html

Hahahaha. Beautiful. I was reading it aloud here to Fixed Cross, but we had to cut it short.

Anyway, this is a comedy. Shakespeare knows women best in his tragedies, 'cause true power is tragic and women have true power. Men are more the attempt to curb the irrepressible will of women.

Perhaps I should point out that I never denied that those Hitler quotes were by Hitler (unlike what you suggested was a Nietzsche quote, which turned out to be only a quote about Nietzsche). I suspected that they might be inaccurate (and I still think they might: I haven’t read up on Hitler in the meantime and don’t intend to do so), but I wasn’t at all surprised they were by Hitler, having read through Mein Kampf and his Table Talk in the past. (I suspected your quotes might be inaccurate because your quoting style reminded me of Abir Taha, whose Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism is by far the worst piece of “scholarship” I’ve read in the last ten years (to name a number; it’s probably more than ten).)

Now all you need to do is compare your Hitler quotes to actual Nietzsche quotes to demonstrate that “the ideal society of Hitler wasn’t really that different from that of Nietzsche”!

Are you laughing because you think the poem confirms your assessment of Shakespeare, that “Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.”?

Shame

The poem is a comedy? Men don’t have “true” power? Men don’t have an irrepressible will? His whole existence is just a doomed uphill battle?

Shame

[

quote]
Anyway, this is a comedy. Shakespeare knows
women best in his tragedies, 'cause true power is
tragic
and women have true power. Men are more the attempt to curb the irrepressible will of women.[/

quote]

The poem is a comedy? Men don’t have “true”

power? Men don’t have an irrepressible will? His whole existence is just a doomed uphill battle?[/
quote]

Romeo and Juliet is an enigma then. Who is whimsical here, who has the will, who has the power?

There is a relation between power and will, that’s hard

To subscribe to.

A mechanistic view may be that of a teeter-totter. Wherever the fulcrum is, which hypothetically adjusted for a balance between two unequal weights.
If in fact the motion should be continued, they have to be separated and move away from the center in different, opposite directions. So the vastly heavier, has to move away only a little bit.

The light one has to move way, way out, sort of like
out on a limb.

It can not even be seen, that’s how far. It can only be felt, where the equilibrium can not be merely a whimsical charade. There, the power becomes indistinguishable from whose will, the perpetuamobile continues and why?; because for that answer, It has to reach way down into logic, and it’s certainty, but without the light of seeing, how would the light of reason eminate?

So even though the are separate, they are essentially not only similar, but identical. They have to be perceived as identical, in absolute union. Here, whimsy has no place.

No need to get all dramatic. I laughed because I found the poem funny!

Anyway, no need to be so defensive about manliness. This: I learned from women.

What did you find funny about it?

The last two lines of every verse are just exquisite.

Perpetualburn wrote:

During Shakespeare’s time, the mocking and lack of respect for women was much more prevalent and the qualities that women were supposed to have during his time were those of a ‘delicate flower’.

Misogyny is nowhere near as prevalent in our time than it was in Shakespeare’s or Nietzsche’s, each had it’s own degree of.

I do not adore Shakespeare or his work. Too flowery, sing song, the poem below has truth in it.

An Almost Made Up Poem - Poem by Charles Bukowski

I see you drinking at a fountain with tiny
blue hands, no, your hands are not tiny
they are small, and the fountain is in France
where you wrote me that last letter and
I answered and never heard from you again.
you used to write insane poems about
ANGELS AND GOD, all in upper case, and you
knew famous artists and most of them
were your lovers, and I wrote back, it’ all right,
go ahead, enter their lives, I’ not jealous
because we’ never met. we got close once in
New Orleans, one half block, but never met, never
touched. so you went with the famous and wrote
about the famous, and, of course, what you found out
is that the famous are worried about
their fame –– not the beautiful young girl in bed
with them, who gives them that, and then awakens
in the morning to write upper case poems about
ANGELS AND GOD. we know God is dead, they’ told
us, but listening to you I wasn’ sure. maybe
it was the upper case. you were one of the
best female poets and I told the publishers,
editors, “ her, print her, she’ mad but she’
magic. there’ no lie in her fire.” I loved you
like a man loves a woman he never touches, only
writes to, keeps little photographs of. I would have
loved you more if I had sat in a small room rolling a
cigarette and listened to you piss in the bathroom,
but that didn’ happen. your letters got sadder.
your lovers betrayed you. kid, I wrote back, all
lovers betray. it didn’ help. you said
you had a crying bench and it was by a bridge and
the bridge was over a river and you sat on the crying
bench every night and wept for the lovers who had
hurt and forgotten you. I wrote back but never
heard again. a friend wrote me of your suicide
3 or 4 months after it happened. if I had met you
I would probably have been unfair to you or you
to me. it was best like this.

You are a hardcore romanticist PB.

Not his women with their steel bosoms.

Women will always find some “misogyny” in man’s image of her, no matter how positive or negative it is. If it’s too positive, then it’s not “real” enough, it’s not how she really is… But if it’s too real…well, then all hell breaks loose…A woman can never get her makeup just right. She watches him like a sentinel to see how well he straddles the fence when the subject of appearances comes up.

Btw, if Shakespeare and Nietzsche are misogynists, then things don’t bode well for the rest of the male population, who will never be so gentle with women.

Ejaculatory prose does not a poem make.

[/quote]

[/quote]
The irony is that Shakespeare is lost on snobs, and apparently Charkles Bukowski too. The guy who prides himself on his down to earth style I guess can’t appreciate heartfelt sincerity when he hears it.