Nietzsche on Islam, from The Antichrist

Nietzsche on Islam, from The Antichrist

>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down ( I do not say by what sort of feet ) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile." What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church but well paid . Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious. Christianity, alcohol the two great means of corruption. Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew.

Attached: international-fellowship-of-christians-and-jews-hanukkah-help-large-7.jpg (1000x562, 65K)

Other urls found in this thread:

islam4europeans.com/2018/09/30/evolas-thoughts-on-islam/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Naught is the life of the world save a pastime and a sport.

-Qur'an 6:32

Is there any wonder that Nietzsche felt the Islamic sense of detatchment toward worldly affairs was beautiful compared to people salty about the world?

Here is some stuff on Evola and Islam

>Evola then moves to the spiritual doctrines of Islam, the highest pillar of which is to testify that there is only one God to be worshipped, without associating any partners to Him. Islam is distinct from all other faiths in how absolute it is in its doctrine of Divine Unity, or tawhid:

>Evola writes,

“Islam presents a traditional completeness, since the shariah and the sunna, that is, the exoteric law and tradition, have their complement not in vague mysticism, but in full-fledged initiatory organizations (turuq) that are categorized by an esoteric teaching (tawil) and by the metaphysical doctrine of the Supreme Identity (tawhid).”

>“Islam also not only rejected the idea of a Redeemer or Savior, which is so central in Christianity, but also the mediation of a priestly caste. By conceiving of the Divine in terms of an absolute and pure monotheism, without a ‘Son,’ a ‘Father,’ or a ‘Mother of God,’ every person as a Muslim appears to respond directly to God and to be sanctified through the Law, which permeates and organizes life in a radically unitary way in all of its juridical, religious, and social ramifications.”(15)

>As we shall see, Evola also admires Islam for its action and it is exactly this reality that distinguishes Tawhid from monotheism. “Tawhid is not monotheism, it is not a metaphysical principle. Allah is beyond what is attributed to Him, therefore beyond logos. Allah is not a mono-theos, nor poli-theos, or tri-theos, or a-theos. Allah is not theo-logical or onto-logical. Allah is neither a theory nor a principle. Allah is not contained by definition.”(16)

>Comparing Christian and Islamic mysticism, Evola notes that what lacks among Christian ascetics is going further than the vows of silence, “the practice of the most interiorised degree of this discipline, that does not only consist of putting an end to the spoken word, but also to thought (Ibn ‘Arabi’s notion of ‘not speaking with oneself’).”

islam4europeans.com/2018/09/30/evolas-thoughts-on-islam/

Attached: Evola-Islam.jpg (500x363, 23K)

>islam4europeans.com
the problem with islam is nonwhites senpai, norweigan muslims would be a differen story but islam(and chrisitanity for that matter) is an idiology completely devoid of ethnic distinction. This all humans are brothers stuff will simply not work, just because people fuck heir cousins and dont gamble.
but the no drugs no alcohol no tabaco and no gambling is based desu

Attached: 691671710bad171e8a60f3f364f757f4.jpg (400x400, 36K)

Main problem is circumcision. Baby torture is not ok.

Islam is not devoid pf ethnic distinction, lol. See verse 30:22

its not about what is written in the texts but what is accually practiced, the bible demands all sorts of stuff but people just disreguard that. Like Melcom X said Islam can somewhat defy racial lines but that will just not lead to a funcitoning society

Attached: b956d67d3a9b67ff53a7a1e2a9e4676f.jpg (511x288, 24K)

I don't what you mean by not practiced. Unless you are seriously suggestingly Muslims tend to be color blind. Ahahahahahaha.

well that depends on the country is being practiced in, in germany they dont seem to make any distinction and take anyone they can but in majority muslim countries they might act different. but still, fucking your cousin just leads to a too shallow genepool mate

Attached: 2008ed3de6f001cbd6ec3d7983166212.jpg (541x511, 36K)

Islam is meant to be for all races and animals and even objects.

On the one hand you worry Islam promote racemixing, on the other
, inbreeding. It can't hardly be both

The problem with Christianity is wh*tes you mean

you just need ethnic homogeneity for a functioning societym, the inbreeding has nothing to do with migration
yes wh*tes run down every religion and turn it into soft faggot shit

Attached: 0c9fa815810f0d96061ecb3f35652fcb.jpg (500x500, 79K)

let me phrase it this way, the way islam is practiced in non majority muslim countries doesnt benefit the nations. Islam is a religion of Conquest and muslims will act so they improve their numbers to the detriment of the socitety they live in.

Attached: 445774eeec0dffa78f7c1a3cfb02d853.jpg (564x540, 38K)

This is absurd even for Nietzsche. By his own "logic", he should affirm Christianity since it defeated its predecessors on their own terms, which he says he affirms. EVERY FUCKING NIETZSCHE EXCERPT I'VE READ HAS AT LEAST ONE CONTRADICTION, NON SEQUITUR, CATEGORICAL MISTAKE, OR INSTANCE OF SHEER DELIRIUM THAT BARELY MAKES GRAMMATICAL SENSE. Stupid bitch.

Nietzsche was kind of a dumb cunt.

>Islam is a religion of Conquest
Well as much as paganism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism and, well every religion

This. It's not islam it's brownies. the worst thing that can happen to the west is that they "integrate" and start destroying the genepool instead of staying in their ethnic cultural ghettos.

not in the same way though, im not getting at terrorism sharia law and that stuff i mean muslims will try to influence policy in a way that enables more muslim migration. I dont think christians do that, but thats just about collectivism in general not about a specific religion.

Attached: 0b3a817f19e707c7101a15fae47c1eaf.jpg (300x300, 20K)

discord tranny

Yes as long as they are minority population. Muslim countries however, even those with massive immigrant labor, generally make citizenship highly exclusive, so migrants have zero power in policy. They are not cucked even to other Muslims. If you were Muslim, you would not allow immigrants to usurp you, but oh well. It is not like pornography, homosexuality and feminism are something to mourn the loss of

Christians have accepted political defeat.

No fucking way

>>Naught is the life of the world save a pastime and a sport.
>-Qur'an 6:32

'All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing.'
- Ecclesiastes 1:8

>Have they not travelled in the land, and have they hearts wherewith to feel and ears wherewith to hear ? For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind.
-Qur'an 22:46

>Christians have accepted political defeat.
sure, but muslim countries are still shitholes. i get the idea that it might have some benefits for peronal growth etc. but to rule a country it seems unfit to me, even when compared to weak christianity.

Attached: 8eaf58afb9104586b70637b0128021e6.jpg (300x300, 30K)

Yes, they are not consuming resources at nearly the rate of the first world, but first-world consumption will last two, three more generations, tops. Then scarcity and deprivation be inflicted harshly by you on your progeny, and only those who believe strongly in something higher than themselves won't consider life a hell

>Yes, they are not consuming resources at nearly the rate of the first world
thats not what im getting at they all have underdeveloped economies with tones of dumb people(probably from inbreeding). a poor country is not necessarily shit but what sane person would not prefere mongolia or some other poor asian nation to any middle eastern state?
>those who believe strongly in something higher than themselves won't consider life a hell
life on earth will be hell when the fat degenerate white(mostly american) people get their chinese stuff taken away, you dont honestly believe that white countries will go to shit because of degeneration and that will not massivly impact the whole world.

Attached: 50db15644928f12d6d7e7b422caac434.jpg (350x350, 35K)

>you need to believe in God to find meaning in life

Yeah maybe if you need an authority figure in your life because you are still intellectually a child.

Fixation on economic growth is causing irreparable harm.

What about Malaysia?

It will impact the whole world with hardship but also liberate it from soulless Americanism

Meaning of life is not higher than yourself if you create or choose the meaning. Atheist existentialism is the most narcissitic philosophy, even more than egoism, because it tries to make its preoccupation "I, I, I, Me, Me Me", its perseveration, seem morally deep, almost spiritual.

What's meaning of life to you?

please be larping. Some conception of God is the lichpin for any actual meaning to even be possible.

malaysia is still a shithole, but singapore is very nice. it isnt about economic growth its about people not being retarded subhumans, can you provide any example of islam improving a country? is turkey better now than it was befor?

Attached: 0a4cc35da7dcdaa8064c50b80969ab61.jpg (564x564, 58K)

You posted this exact thing earlier this week you filthy little roach. You're a dishonest little cretin.

Yeah he was. He had some nuggets of insight but these small things were taken by others and used to a far greater and more philosophically sound level.

D'Annunzio is what Nietzsche wished he could be.

There's nothing wrong with egoism. If I can create meaning for myself then I am clearly better than you.

It's not though. I don't take my meaning from an authority figure just like I don't take my truths from an authority figure.

I create meaning for myself and so do the majority of people who aren't so neurotic and weak that they are unwilling to face the absurdity of life.

>If I can create meaning for myself then I am clearly better than you
or you are just deluded, not that thats a bad thing, all solutions to existential crisis are unprovable delusions that need to be seen as truth to be effective. Considering your shitposting on a nigerian chess forum you either set a low standart for yourself or fell in the trap of hedonism, but whatever makes you happy Übermensch

Attached: 4d1cc668177cab11511bc24ce2f0b9e4.jpg (474x465, 25K)

>I am the beast I worship
You're just a low IQ relativist who can't tell the difference between discovering something and creating something.

That makes no fucking sense. Stop acting in bad faith and take responsibilities for your own actions and consequences in life. Bluepilled.

Never claimed to be an Ubermensch. If you were literate in philosophy whatsoever you'd see that the things I've said are in line with Camus. But you're trying to bait people with Islam and coming out with dull, unintelligent statements like all solutions to existential crises being unprovable delusions when again if you had any inkling of philosophical knowledge you'd understand that meaning is obviously a subjective thing that exists on the human level. But you're an actual idiot trying to present the image of being an intellectual and anyone with half a brain can see through your act.

Kill yourself.

I'm really not a relativist. Don't use terms you don't understand. I understand perfectly well the distinction between discovery and creation and I never equated the two.

Turkey was worse after secularism

Anyone can create meaning but that is not believing in something higher, it is just watching a movie on mute and making up the dialogue

The Übermensch is a paradigm of a race or perhaps human race, not an individualist state

There is no objectivity without a being that exists outside of actuality to impart actuality. It's just chaos otherwise. So yes you are categorically a relativist and are incapable of comprehending the distinction between meaning and understanding.

I also hope you are larping because you sound like a caricature.

Subjective/objective is not the same as relative/absolute. Spacetime is relative and objective

Anyone can larp and create relativist "meaning" obviously, fake meaning and actual meaning are not the same thing. Fake meaning is called being wrong, or in the case meaning doesn't actually exist, being nothing but an illusion. What something means to you has no bearing on what it actually means in itself.

Don't be ridiculous. I don't believe that truth comes from an authority figure that doesn't mean I'm a relativist. I still believe that there are absolute truths. I understand the distinction between meaning and understanding perfectly well hence the fact that I have not conflated or equated the two at any point.

Then you are not "creating" meaning

I think people should understand that Nietzsche really was not a reputable historian. While he was trained and proficient in the study of philology proper historical discipline was a skill he lacked. The Birth of Tragedy was widely panned by the historical community on the basis of its methodology and the fact he extrapolated so much. There's something like a single or a couple footnote sources in the entire work.

how am i doing that? all solutions to said problem are premade and you have to accept them or you make them yourself and have to believe them, how is that wrong?
>your act
im not the islam guy nigger

Attached: 4da3cb936935e9ede8af1623ea51e6a1.jpg (552x467, 26K)

You mean whites cultivate and civilize religions which in shitskin hands were just elaborate excuses to chimp out all day long and not work

Relativity as related to different forms of objectivity is not the same as relativity as in relative to however I feel.
Of course you aren't because you don't create meaning, you discover it. Writing the formulas for math equations doesn't create mathematics, it exists regardless of whether humans ever codify it.
an "authority" figure seems to be something that really bothers you. God doesn't even have to be conventionally cognizant. It can be any "force" that precedes material existence. The idea comes before the object for the meaning assigned to the object to have any truth to it. it's paradoxical to assign meaning to something that exists and represents that meaning before that meaning existed.

That's called being based. Real philosophers only footnotes are "this was once revealed to me in a dream"

Not all solutions are premade and I didn't accuse you of being the Islam guy

>Of course you aren't because you don't create meaning, you discover it. Writing the formulas for math equations doesn't create mathematics, it exists regardless of whether humans ever codify it.
Are you saying you believe in mathematical Platonism? I personally don't, I only accept Platonism in regard to the attributes of Allah.

So if I said to you that I don't think there was ever nothing and that matter has always existed then what would you say about what God is.

I would tell you your position is chaotic because we have nothing that suggests an infinite regress or something from nothing is possible in actuality. it would mean everything is random because what appears to be consistent isn't actually acting until any actual laws, making something like meaning inherently impossible. Chaotic absurdism isn't a very convincing stance because it's pretty self-evident there is a lot of order in actuality.

It doesn't mean something from nothing it means that there always was something and it was never the case that something came from something. There are still absolute truths in this universe. There always was matter it was just in a different state.

Again, you can't have an infinite regress.

so how am i wrong then? what act did you see through?

Attached: 4d2416053d5c23b0195a0ad190e18eaf.jpg (564x564, 40K)

Stating that there always was something is not an infinite regress.