I do not feel motivated to read, let alone to respond, to your posts Jerkey. This is because your posts are convoluted. You remind me of Orbie/Orb/Obe.
The phrase “noble beast” is a contradiction in terms. Nobles are not beasts and beasts are not nobles.
The type “noble beast” refers to an impure type that is a mixture of noble (Aryan) and beastly (Gentile) elements with beastly (Gentile) elements being dominant.
There is a hierarchy of forces in every phenomenon. The mere presence of noble traits in one’s conduct does not make one a noble. Rather, it is the position of these noble traits within one’s hierarchy of forces that does so. If one’s noble traits are subservient and not dominant, then we cannot really speak of nobles (Aryans), but of beasts (Gentiles) and sorcerers (Jews) who make use of inherited nobility for their own ignoble ends.
The words we use and the thoughts we think betray our origins. This applies more generally, to all of our conduct. There are three fundamental races within which we can categorize all of our behavior. These are the Aryan race (farmer archetype), the Gentile race (hunter archetype) and the Jewish race (herder archetype.)
The general populace belongs to the raceless type we call Sheeple. These are the people who can be said to have an origin in all of the fundamental races, but who, due to lack of willpower, cannot stay loyal to any of these races. Hence, they require external force to discipline themselves. These are the people who simply submit to whatever type is dominant at the time.
Other people may be racially pure or impure, but what is certain is that they strive to remain loyal to a single race – they strive to purify themselves.
Among those who strive to preserve a type, there are those types that strive to remain loyal to an ugly mixture of disparate elements. These are mongrel types.
A “noble beast”, I believe, belongs to such a type for the simple reason that it strives to preserve a mixture of two incompatible types, the type “noble” and the type “beast”. This is in contrast to pure beastly type that views nobility as a weakness that has to be eliminated, as well as to pure noble type that views barbarism as an ugliness that has to be eliminated.
There is no doubt that Nietzsche wasn’t a pure Gentile, but it is still uncertain whether he was an Aryan, a mongrel, or as some insist, a Jew.
Plenty of his ideas are Gentile in origin.
WTP, or the idea that everything strives for power, belongs to Gentiles. Both Gentiles and Jews strive for power, the only difference being that they use different means to do so. Gentiles use direct (honest) means, whereas Jews use indirect (dishonest) means. Gentiles are honest about their “will to power”, whereas Jews are dishonest about it.
Nietzsche did not oppose himself to Jews, but he did oppose himself to Judeo-Christianity and other forms of indirect forms of power. This plus the fact that he praised barbarians reveals that his general train of thought is of Gentile origin.
On the other hand, his “ontologization” of will to power is of Jewish origin. It is a consequence of his un-willingness to admit that one’s WTP is only one’s own and not necessarily that of the other. He wanted to believe that EVERYONE strives for power in order to comfort himself and make himself feel superior in relation to those who supposedly conceal their own WTP.
This is to hide the fact that people diverge in what they strive for and to blur the distinction between order and power. You will see that many Gentiles – particularly the mongrel types – insist that power and order are one and the same thing.
Whoever reads my posts knows that I refer to Jakob and Sauwelios – the philosophers of Value Ontology – as Value Ontolog-ers even though the correct term is Value Ontolog-ists. This is no accident.
The suffix -ist added to a noun denotes a person whose profession is that noun. On the other hand, the suffix -er added to a verb denotes a person who does an action indicated by that verb.
So, ontoligist is someone whose profession is ontology, whereas ontologer is someone who “ontologizes” something.
To ontologize means to turn something into ontology and that means to turn something into a fundamental principle that guides being (the word ontos is of Greek origin and it means being.)
Ontologers are similar to psychologers, but unlike psychologers who limit themselves to human mind, ontologers deal with the entirety of one’s being. Hence, they are more powerful.
The main difference between Gentiles (hunters) and Jews (herders) is that Gentiles use physical strength to enslave others whereas Jews use intellect.
In order to make this clear, I have to define the concept of slavery. It is important to note that slavery never refers to physical slavery, as in, being physically limited to act. Rather, slavery always refers to spiritual slavery, and that means to the inability to chase after one’s hopes and dreams that is caused by fear.
To enslave a man means to make him afraid to such an extent that he is no longer chasing after his hopes and dreams.
This is understandable: slavemasters need slaves i.e. people who will do what is of use to slavemasters, not what they themselves want to do.
What does fear do to a man? It detaches him from his hopes and dreams – from his ideal – and forces him to do something else. On biological level, it splits his blood flow instead of focusing it.
Gentiles use physical violence to make people afraid. Jews, on the other hand, use representations.
In both cases, a problem is created and a false solution is provided. Both herd, the only difference is that Gentiles use brute force whereas Jews use much more sophisticated methods.
Ontologers are Jews who herd other people by the means of ontologization of their own motives. By ontologizing their motives – by separating them from the spiritual realm and anchoring them in the material realm – they enslave everyone to their own motives.
The first step is to deny the existence of “free will”. With this move, the spiritual realm is completely concealed and the only realm that remains visible is the material realm. This is achieved by making people afraid of spirituality. Whoever dares to disregard the material realm (the so-called reality) is severely punished which is then (mis)interpreted as a proof that the material realm must not be transcended.
The second step is to provide a useful interpretation of the material realm. The ontologer simply abstracts his motives from himself and ascribes them to the material realm.
Whoever dares to will anything other than what the ontologer ascribed to the material realm is then told he is likely to fail – and embarassingly so. Nothing scares Goyim more than fear of failure.
Sam Harris (Jew) is working on ontologizing morality. Soon, you won’t be able to choose morality on your own without Sam trying to make sure you are aware of all the possible negative consequences that you might face. He will finish his lesson with “are you really sure you want to do this?”
Sigmund Freud (Jew) ontologized sex. He made popular the idea that if you abstain from sex you will become mentally ill.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Jew?) ontologized power. He made popular the idea that everyone strives for power and that those who do not are merely self-loathing nihilists.
Charles Darwin (Jew?) ontologized survival. He made popular the idea that whoever does not strive to survive and reproduce is “unfit”.
Jakob Milikowski (Jew) ontologized value. He made popular the idea that values are determined unconsciously and that those who determine them consciously are nihilists.
This is all interesting, isn’t it?