Civilization isn’t based upon morality the world over and you’re damn fool for asserting otherwise.
Segregation is moral? 
Yes. It’s better for both parties. Knowing your limits – boundaries – is always good.
I think Nietzsche’s gripe with Christianity was personal–he just hated it–but that’s not to say his criticisms weren’t grounded. Nietzsche always called Christianity a “decadent” religion, which has nothing to do with today’s meaning of decadent, which has come to mean “elegant”–decadent in the Nietzschean context means “subject to decay”, so he was saying that Christianity pushes man towards his own self-destruction.
I’m not sure what he thought was worse: a decadent morality or no morality at all.
You’re probably right that the faults in Christian morality are just symptoms of deeper faults with herd morality in general–memetic systems built to guilt/pressure herd members to do things that serve the interests of the more powerful agents in society. Turning the other cheek, for example, certainly does not serve you, it serves the one telling you to do it. Nietzsche pointed this out explicitly. It was decadent in the sense that it pushed the herd towards their own self destruction for the benefit of the few who would be very good at preaching the morality without actually practicing it. This is generally the way any cultural/ideological system of beliefs and values will tend, but I think with Christianity it reached an ultimate pinnacle. Christianity was the first religion to directly and absolutely turn self-sacrifice into a moral virtue.
Why do you think that there must be a powerful elite controlling the herd? There is no need for such a thing, and nowadays, there are no powerful elites, only rich elites that are themselves part of the herd.
People can be self-destructive without others forcing them to be self-destructive. Freedom, which is external phenomenon, does not equal strength, which is internal, biological, phenomenon.
There are no powerful elites. There is only herd. There is noone benefiting from herd morality. Rather, it’s doing harm to everyone.
There is no problem with self-sacrifice so as long it serves some higher biological order. In the case of modern herd, there are no higher biological orders, thus it is benefiting noone and harming everyone.
Nietzsche’s criticism of herd motality was much deeper than mere “it’s a tool used by elites to make people do what they want them to do”.
Herd morality is what happens when you give people far more freedom than they can handle.
There is only so much freedom an individual can handle. Beyond that it becomes overwhelming and eventually self-denying.
Nietzsche did not say something new with his statement "Gott ist tot“ ("God is dead“), because God died or was already dead when the so-called "French revolution“ began (1789) and certain philosophers, theologians, and others already said that God was dead.
At Nietzsche’s time the distribution of Roman Catholics and Lutheran Protestants in Germany was almost the same as it is today: fifty/fifty (50% Roman Catholics and 50% Lutheran Protestants), but the Lutheran Protestants had more power because after the German War (Prussia and allies versus Austria and allies - 1866) Prussia was the main power in Germany, whereas before 1866 and since a long time Austria had been the main power in Germany. The statement that Lutheran or other Protestants would be “weaker” than other Christians (Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones) is not true. But that statement is probably Nietzsche’s true self-description, because he was a Lutheran Protestant - and “weak”.
Christianity - as well as Buddhism - is merely “weaker” in the sense that it is more about love and peace, whereas certain other religions are merely “stronger” in the sense that they are more about hate and war. Whether one can say that “weak” means “evil” and “strong” means “good” is not only an ethical question but also a question of how one wants or not wants the people to live together, thus a question of the form of government. Nietzsche was against democracy and socialism, and because of the German and English example of democracy and socialism he thought democracy and socialism were caused by Protestantism. To him the causal chain was: Platonism => Christianity (Platonism for the people?) => Protestantism (Christianity for the people?) => democracy or/and socialism (Protestantism for the people?).
For some, Nietzsche shall remain a “misunderstood” and “distorted” philosopher, for others their love affair with Nietzsche shows little signs of abating and yet surely a re-examination of his character and philosophy is long overdue. Notably the parallel between his philosophy and Hitler’s grand scheme of things.
Oh please, look around you. If you don’t see social hierarchical structures everywhere you turn, then you’ve been living under a rock. Yes, they may all be blindly following their herd instinct, but some definitely do benefit, weather they realize it or not, from the manipulation and suppression of others.
Sure! You might even say the death of God was the trigger for the French Revolution, but did they appreciate the implications of this to the same extent that Nietzsche did?
Do I have to look around or do you have to carefully read what other people write? I said that there are no powerful elites not that there are no elites. In fact, I said that there are rich elites that are part of the herd.
The point being that herd morality is not created by masters, but by slaves themselves.
Masters want their slaves to follow their own master morality (which is tailored to every class.) Slave morality is undesirable.
Your understanding of what benefit is is shortsighted, typically slavish, thinking that money automatically equals good. What matters is strength, not money. You may be earning a lot of money, but if you are becoming weaker in the process, then it’s no benefit.
That doesn’t make any sense. Elites are, by definition, powerful. Is everything one gargantuan democratic indistinguishable blob to you where everyone’s exactly equal?
Right, because wealth has no impact on power.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that all slaves are on an equal playing field.
According to Nietzsche, master morality means: creating your own values, even if that’s dominating over another. Masters most certainly wouldn’t want their slaves adopting that morality.
Who said anything about money? We’re talking about the balance of power between different factions in society. There are those who are going to listen to and try to practice the morality which is preached to them, and then there are those who will only preach but will not practice. The latter can sway the former a lot more readily than the former can the latter, and if the morality being preached happens to be a slave morality, particularly a morality of self-sacrifice and martyrdom, then the latter will definitely have a lot more power over former.
The point is to make an effort to understand what I am saying, not to intentionally misunderstand what I am saying by employing the easy method of literally interpreting the meaning of my words. Perhaps I am using the wrong words to express something that is true, something that implies that what you are saying is wrong. Have you thought about that?
Don’t answer. You haven’t. You lack basic discipline. Which is why you are horribly irritating.
And I am not even sure I am using the wrong words. For example, the word “elite” comes from Latin “eligere” which means “choose”. The word “elite”, literally speaking, means “select few”. Nowhere is power implied.
Thus, you are merely wasting my time. Which is your point: to distract yourself, and by extemsion others, from what I am saying.
You should be ashamed of yourself, you fag.
Never did I mention that everyone is equal. What I did mention is that everyone is degenerate, whether they are at the top of the social hierarchy or at the bottom of it.
Being the leader of the pack does not necessarily mean being powerful in its true biological sense.
Whether you spoke of money or not is irrelevant. You are still shortsighted.
Never did I say that wealth has no impact on power. What I said is that wealth does not necessarily indicate or lead to power.
I am afraid you have a mild form of autism. Drug induced, perhaps?
Herd morality is undesirable, and thus not something that true masters would be intererested in preaching to their herd, because it portrays masters as “evil”. Masters want their slaves to think of their masters as what they are – good.
Master morality means autonomy, which is to say, it means making your own decisions.
The trick is that there is an infinite number of decisions in life and that at any point in time any individual can only control a finite number of decisions.
People have limits. There are decisions they can make, and then, there are decisions they cannot make.
Higher people are less limited, i.e. they have more freedom, thus they can make a wide range of decisions. Lower people are more limited, i.e. they have less freedom, thus they can make only a narrow range of decisions.
From this fact alone social hierarchy follows. Higher men make decisions for lower men. It’s natural.
Thus, as you can see, slaves too can follow master morality. In other words, they can make their own decisions, which is to say, those decisions that are within their power.
The problem occurs when lower people assume the role of higher people and then start making decisions that are not within their power. Basically, when lower people (i.e. slaves) acquire far more freedom they can actually handle.
This occurs after the aristocracy becomes so powerful it achieves all of the goals it has set for itself. The lack of new goals leads to atrophy. The aristocracy weakens and loses the ability to control, to limit the freedom of, its lower castes. This is when herd morality kicks in.
Just to be clear: herd morality means mindless morality, morality followed only because everyone else is doing it. Don’t confuse this with slave morality which is a reationary morality induced by abuse at the hands of the powerful. The two go hand in hand, obviously, but not all the time. Out of the two, it’s slave morality which is far more likely to say that the masters are “evil” but even then, not necessarily. What’s at the core of slave morality is the slave’s own self-validation in virtue of the position he’s in. The meak shall inherit the Earth means: those in a slave position (or subject to slavery) are the good guys. It’s the idea that because of your slave status, nothing’s your fault, nothing that you do is really your decision, so you’re always innocent.
I can see how you’d say that a master wouldn’t want his slave adopting a morality like that, but I think it would be even worse for the master to wish a master morality upon his slaves: the idea of the slave inventing his own values and doing what he wants doesn’t exactly strike me as a way to ensure the security of the slave’s subordinate status. Rather, I think the master couldn’t care less what kind of morality his slaves adopt, as long as they continues doing what they’re told. The only sense I can see the master wishing a master morality upon his slaves is in the sense that “what’s good for me is also what you should be striving for.” So if the master believes slaves should obey their masters, I can see him preaching this to his slaves. But he certainly wouldn’t preach: invent your own values and do as you please.
^ Here I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
You are trying to distract yourself and others from the fact that it is actually you, and not me, who thinks that he is at the center of the universe.
You apparently think that you do not deserve to be punished for your behavior. You take your particular instance of behavior to be unconditionally good. Beyond criticism.
You want to portray me as if my reaction to you is rooted, not in reality, but in my frustration with you. This is not the case. My reaction is rooted in the fact that you are an evasive person. You are denying reality. You are not merely frustrating me. You are an arrogant moron.
You have no interest in trying to understand what I am saying. In fact, you think that you have a right to deal with me in any way you want. It’s a free choice for you, beyond any kind of criticism.
What you want is to “win”. You have no genuine interest in discussion at all.
You are even celebrating the fact that you can do as you please, without any regard for limits. “Why should I make an effort to understand what he’s saying?” you ask yourself.
Really, what you are asking is why should you stay within the limits when it is possible, and pleasurable, to simply transcend them, which is to say to forget them, in the face of difficulty?
Why should you try to understand what I am saying before responding to me when you can simply imagine what I am saying and then respond to this imagination?
It’s easier after all.
Because you can does not mean you should. But then, you’re a drug addict. What can I expect.
I can predict your next move. You are going to say something like “my behavior can be excused because you were wrong anyways”. But do you actually know that I am wrong or are you simply erasing the boundaries between certainty and uncertainty in order to be able to interpret uncertainty as certainty, and thus, assumption as fact?
You are one sad fuck.
What does it matter whether we moved beyond Latin or not? What is your point? To simply spite me? How does that affect my statement that modern elites are degenerate?
You need to learn how to shut the fuck up. You need to learn some boundaries. When to open your mouth and when to keep them shut.
But you apparently think that you are some God given perfection that must be treated with respect unconditionally.
You think that you are beyond any kind of limitations. You are free to do anything you want and can.
If you can be gay, if it gives you pleasure, then why not be gay?
Who am I to demand of you to behave in any sort of way?
You cannot comprehend the fact that I am speaking on behalf of reality, not on behalf of my personal interests.
You are a retard not because I think so, but because you are one.
Who cares whether there are hierarchical relationships within herd or not? How is that relevant?
Do you even understand the concept of relevance?
Idiot.
Regarding master morality, master morality does not mean “invent your values and do as you please”. Master morality means being realistic. It means knowing your limits. It would be unrealistic for people who are enslaved to “do as they please”. Masters impose limits. That’s what they do. They reduce the number of decisions people can make. They do not teach people how not to think for themselves. They make it impossible for them to do so. Do you understand? They use overt force. They do not manipulate. They do not lie.
The extreme excessive life style of the last three French kings had led to the fact that the French people had nothing to eat. The terror system of the French revolution gave the first example of modern terrorism and modern state terrorism. Some people interpreted the French revolution as hell, as an ungodly situation of evil, of the devil himself.
Remind me of what your point was again?
You are lowering the standard of communication in order to avoid feeling embarrassed for your petty and very rude behavior.
This is supported by your suggestion that there is no universal standatd of philosophical conduct. Instead, you think that everything is relative, like a true egalitarian that you are. There are only personal standards of conduct (e.g. Anderson’s standard of conduct.) And when you fail even according to your own standard, then you can simply lower it, so you can never feel embarrassed about anything. In this way, you can never be held responsible for anything. You are innocent no matter what you do.
Thus, it does not matter what you think, for in the absence of strict standards, you cannot think. You can only pretend that you think.
In the absence of clear standards, there is no distinction between uncertainty and certainty, fantasy and reality, ignorance and knowledge. Everything becomes the same.
You even admit that you think that there is no difference between merely imagining what the other is saying and making a genuine attempt to understand what the other is saying.
Your victim mentality does not allow you to see reality as it is. Whoever is angry with you must be so because he is a 15 year old drop out.
Keep making shit up. Why not, if you can get away with it? There is no club that can discipline you – and only a club can discipline you. Words have no effect on you. You are “strong” enough not to let words affect you.
Nietzsche never said that master morality means “doing as you please”. You did.
You really do think that the world should make itself apparent to you, without requiring any effort on your part, don’t you?
The reason this discussion is going nowhere is not because I am not communicating with sufficient clarity, but because you are being evasive. You have no interest in confronting what I am saying.
He who speaks with little clarity can be confronted with a demand for clarification. You can ask “what do you mean?”
That’s not what you are doing.
What you are doing is lowering your own standards while demanding that the other increases their own.
You thereby turn yourself into the subject of the topic. No discussion can be had with someone who is not willing to pay attention.
We all know you are a sad loser who suffers from deep feelings of inferiority. No wonder then that you grab every opportunity to feel good about yourself.
You changed the topic from “what is master morality” to “what is the definition of the word elite”.
You needed to feel superior in some regard, so you picked one of the lowest games, the game of vocabulary definitions.
I am wrong because I am using the word elite in the wrong manner.
And even there, you suck. You sad fuck.