Why didn't he move to the middle east if he liked islam so much?

The whole Islam thing was just typical 19th century exoticism, if he actually visited the middle east he would have nothing but scorn to those subhumans.

I think if he were more familiar with Islam he would have decried its fatalism. Just see how much the average Muslim says "inshallah"

He thought Islam = 1001 nights, magic blue genies, big tiddy harem bellydancer girls, camphor, perfume, hookah, flying carpets, fez hats, ancient sex positions

The very existence of Islamic banking says otherwise

>that's just a meme

No, it is not

Nietzsche was no less a fatalist than Islam

No he didn't. What are you talking about? He loved that Muslims were teetotalers. Nietzsche admired Islam because the movement under Muhammed was founded by warriors in the bloom of a new world empire, not by oppressed priests or ascetics. This is also why Evola adored Islam, he saw it as a religion of the warrior caste rather than the priestly caste. Islam values virility and strength rather than virginity and weaknees. It requires one help.the poor, but it does not condemn wealth and hierarchy, it says Allah gives it according to His will to test people and sometimes to utilize their strengths and everyone has a role and rank. Nietzsche saw this as the direct inversion of everything he hated about Christianity.

You misunderstood TSZ, no biggie, most people do.

That is also the reason why islam will ultimately win the (culture) war in Europe.

Yes, a serious community > Deus Vult memes

"islam has the poo poo and the pee pee epic poo popo poo oo OOP OOP O O OOPo o oo poo o o PooPoo! PooPee! PeePoo!" -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Die schwule Wissenschaft meines Syphilis-verseuchten Gliedes (1888)

was he, dare i say, a faggot?

Have wudu

He praises Buddhism while attacking Christianity as well. In fact, he writes about Buddhism a lot more than Islam.

He hated Budhhism

>In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions—they are both décadence religions—but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.—Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity—it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, “god,” was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism). It does not speak of a “struggle with sin,” but, yielding to reality, of the “struggle with suffering.” Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts behind it; it is, in my phrase, beyond good and evil.

From The Antichrist. Define "hated," because it's not adding up to me.

like all Europeans, neetch was a self-loathing cuck enameled with the idea of browns but uninterested in actually being near them

>hedonistic
Funny that, considering the Abrahamic religions are all peak hedonism.

While the normative ideal of Islam seem impressive, in reality the system is unsustainable and barbaric. Its flaws are clearly evident by how short their Golden Age was, and further by the meagreness of their contributions as a civilisation.
>islam will ultimately win the (culture) war in Europe
Truly only an American (or other diaspora) has the ability to project the cultural failings of his own country and people onto Europe.
Europe has not experienced a fraction of the immigration, let alone civilisational subversion, that America has, and yet the majority of countries have already voted in right-wing nationalist governments within one election cycle.
Only an idiot thinks that the Europeans will lie down and die, you clearly have never met one and don't understand how much they are opposed to multicultural ZOG propaganda.

>enameled

Hated is too strong a word, he always compares is favorably with Christianity (which he truthfully hated), but he held it as life-denying nihilism just the same, albeit far superior to Christianity because it was a way to overcome ressentiment

>Truly only an American (or other diaspora)
I live in Europe you genius. Voting in right-wing politicians (except in Germany and France, the two biggest countries in Western Europe though!) who can't do shit because no matter what you're not allowed to deport them. They're citizens. Then you look at the birthrates. Then you realize you're fucked. How about YOU instead look at the average white European male? Is this your grand savior?

>Europe has not experienced a fraction of the immigration, let alone civilisational subversion, that America has
That is not the subject, the subject is Islam. America has a very low Muslim presence which is quite secular.

>While the normative ideal of Islam seem impressive, in reality the system is unsustainable and barbaric. Its flaws are clearly evident by how short their Golden Age was, and further by the meagreness of their contributions as a civilisation.

Are any contributions outside of Europe (Mesopotamia at most) and her colonial children even studied in the west?

It's how he saw it, until the horsie.

Attached: Ressentiment Scheler.png (1430x260, 29K)

>except in Germany and France
Ignoring the fact that right-wing factions made massive headway in both elections, especially considering the history.
Also I am merely pointing out the strength of the will of the European people, and that this fact will mean they will never be dominated by Islam.
Also, I never said they were going to vote their way out of it. We can look at the history of multi-racial societies to know that that wont be the case.

Qur'an 6:38

>There is not an animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book (of Our decrees). Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.

Ahaditha

>Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (Peace be upon him) as saying: An ant had bitten a Prophet (one amongst the earlier Prophets) and he ordered that the colony of the ants should be burnt. And Allah revealed to him: "Because of an ant's bite you have burnt a community from amongst the communities which sings My glory."

-Sahih Muslim: 5567

>Allah had once forgiven a prostitute. She passed by a dog panting near a well. Seeing that thirst had nearly killed him, she took off her shoe, tied it to her scarf, and drew up some water. Allah forgave her for that.

-Sahih al-Bukhari: 3141

>There is no Muslim who plants a tree or sows seeds and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats from it except that it is regarded as a charity for him.

-Sahih al-Bukhari: 2195

>Verily, Allah has prescribed excellence in everything. If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.

-Sahih Muslim: 1955

>Whoever kills so much as a sparrow unjustly will have it pleading to Allah on the Day of Resurrection, saying: O Lord, he killed me for no reason, and he did not kill be for any beneficial purpose.

-Sunan al-Nasa'i: 4446

Ultimately, Nietzsche's knowledge of these religions came from European scholars who were only able to transfer some abstractions from the religions rather than their more pertinent details. His word on them hits on the most abstract aspects of them, so what he says is relevant, but we can't hold his word as gospel on any of them (and he wouldn't want anyone to do that for anything he wrote either). The fact is that he didn't really write much about Islam overall, and probably knew nothing of the culture itself. What we can see today is that it's similar to Communism in that it sounds good on paper but in reality it hasn't helped their civilization prosper in the long run.

>Are any contributions outside of Europe (Mesopotamia at most) and her colonial children even studied in the west?
No, they're not.
So exactly what facts give credence to the superiority of warrior caste societies as opposed to those of Christian Europe?

It united a bunch of feuding desert tribes into a powerful empire. There would basically be no Arabic civilization without Islam.

I do not know what you mean by prosper.

There are no "intellectuals that admire islam" what are you on about

this, Islam is basically in a giant hangover and nobody can figure out what to do with themselves

so they jump on a pick up truck and spray at anyone who marginally disagrees with their version of islam

>Arabic civilization
It hasn't changed for centuries and it's produced next to no inventions or art relevant to the dominant world culture for centuries. It's like Greece, it's culturally stagnant and everything about it that's glamorous is in the distant past now.

Christian Europe was ruled by warrior castes competing with a priestly caste, both were ultimately brought low by the financier class

God, every time I read Nietzche I feel more and more that he really was a fucking turbo brainlet.
>It does not speak of a “struggle with sin,” but, yielding to reality, of the “struggle with suffering.”
What the hell does he think "struggling with sin means?" How did the idea of sin become an innate character of man rather than an innate tendency of man toward anxiety about the world?

So he was just a edgy contrarian afterall. No doubt his philosophy is taken seriously mostly by teenagers

I would hesitate before calling modern art a contribution, even Salvador Dalí said it was vile. I would also hesistate before extolling our extremely technified state. In fact I would hesistate before praising modern world culture at all, and I would reevaluate Whiggish presuppositions.

tfw slave who proletarianized the "noble spirit" so weak men in the future could pretend a relentless death drive in the name of change is based

From Ecce Homo

> To the sick man resentment ought to be more strictly forbidden than anything else—it is his particular danger: unfortunately however it is also his most natural inclination. This was fully grasped by that profound physiologist Buddha. His "religion” which it would be better to call a system of hygiene in order to avoid confounding it with a creed so wretched as Christianity depended for its effect upon the triumph over resentment: to make the soul free from this was considered the first step towards recovery. "Not by hostility is hostility put to flight; through friendship does hostility end”: this stands at the beginning of Buddha’s teaching—this is not a precept of morality but of physiology. Resentment born of weakness is most harmful to no one but the weak man himself—conversely in the case of that man whose nature is fundamentally a rich one, resentment is a superfluous feeling – the mastery of which is almost a proof of richness. Those of my readers who know the earnestness with which my philosophy wages war against the feelings of revenge and vindictiveness even to the extent of attacking the doctrine of "free will” — my struggle with Christianity is only a particular instance of it — will understand why I wish to focus particular attention upon my own personal attitude and the sureness of my instincts precisely in this matter. In my moments of decadence I forbade myself the indulgence of the above feelings because they were harmful; as soon as my life recovered enough riches and pride however I regarded them again as forbidden but this time because they were beneath me.

>War on the other hand is something different. At heart I am a warrior. Attacking belongs to my instincts. To be able to be an enemy, to be an enemy—that presuppose a strong nature; this is in any case a condition of a strong nature. Such natures need resistance; consequently they go in search of resistance: the pathos of aggression belongs of necessity to strength as much as the feelings of revenge and of vindictiveness belong to weakness. Woman for instance is revengeful; this is due to her weakness and her susceptibility to the suffering of others. The strength of the aggressor can be measured by the opposition which he needs; every increase, every growth is revealed by a seeking out of more formidable opponents—or problems: a philosopher who is combative challenges even problems to a duel.

To sin means to miss the mark. It is different from merely suffering. The point Nietzsche is making is that Buddhists do not treat the matter by focusing on the cause of the suffering, but by focusing on the effect of it.

Not really faggot, but believe what you want.

They do focus on the cause, which they say is desire

I get what you're saying but even basic writings like Sermon on the Mount tackle these issues. the whole cause and effect thing is a consequence of papism
orthodox christianity, with their reading of Adam's sin as imparting a hereditary urge to "miss the mark" rather than an inborn impure nature amounts to an almost totally different ontological rendering of christianity than that which the catholics and protestants would spread later. it's really a shame.

>rather than an inborn impure nature amounts to an almost totally different ontological rendering of christianity than that which the catholics and protestants would spread later.

Catholics don't believe original sin is an imputed guilt, rather it is the consequence of what was taken from Adam. I.e a man that has his assets seized cannot pass his wealth to the child. That deprivation is original sin.

just because you think commodified art is shit doesn't mean theirs is any good either you know

None of this changes the fact that Arabic civilization has contributed essentially nothing for centuries. Also, you don't sound like you have much of a clue as to what Western civilization is about these days, or what it's been about for the past 100 years.

still a conception of christianity firmly rooted in a legalist ontology. what a corruption. how many times are we supposed to let peter get away with denying christ again?

>moving the goal posts

K. Just remember Catholics don't believe in imputed guilt like you said they did.

what you say they believe is more disturbing than imputed guilt frankly
love framing the struggle for salvation in terms of my great-grandpa's asset forfeiture. makes my brain think

Augustine certainly believed something closer to the former and Western Christianity as a whole inordinately tends to the Augustinian persuasion. It's not so simple and it's more a question of emphasis than doctrine. Why not simply call it ancestral sin, as the Orthodox do, instead of original sin? Roman Catholics would meet this with objection precisely because of their Augustinianism.

>. Why not simply call it ancestral sin, as the Orthodox do, instead of original sin?

Because it was the first (original) sin? Why are you getting caught on semantics? Hell, the RCC uses in Greek the translation "Ancestral Sin" anyway. Point is, it is a state of being and not an act of which one is guilty.

I do not just mean commodified art. Dalí was heavily critical of surrealism later in life, and in fact his art was much more "commodified" than theirs was, as was Renaissance art.

Isamic civilization is not an adjunct to western civilization which feeds it through "contributions". Similarly westetn civilization has not contributed much to Islamic civilization

That is an innocation less than 100 years old

>Isamic civilization is not an adjunct to western civilization which feeds it through "contributions".
Right, because it has nothing to contribute. Not even to itself, considering it has hardly changed in centuries.

>Similarly westetn civilization has not contributed much to Islamic civilization
That's mostly due to Islamic civilization.

>impure nature
But here's another point Nietzsche is making with his distinction between Christianity and Buddhism: Buddhism doesn't moralize like that. It isn't concerned with anything "impure" like Christianity is. Hence, it doesn't conceptualize suffering as the result of a wrong, but rather the result of an aspect of nature. We suffer because we desire; it doesn't say that to desire is evil or impure. It doesn't force an unnecessary moralizing of the phenomenon into the picture. At least, that's how Nietzsche understood Buddhism.

If you mean Islam basically insulates against modernity, then yes. This however is not a bad thing.

It's not okay to be perpetually stuck in cultural stagnation just because you think the other guys are worse off than you.

I don't know what you mean by stagnation. You mean not becoming more and more liberal?

I mean not creating anything new at all or seeking new heights to climb. As far as I can tell, "Arabic civilization" amounts to just day to day survival and maintaining millennia-old traditions and customs. There is apparently a United Arab Emirates space program for one thing (learned from Europeans btw) but I don't see it being all that important to the Arabic culture.

By "new heights" you mean literature, music and art engaged by the west? By that criterion, virtually everyone but the west is stagnant, including many parts of the west (Anglos for example mostly ignore Spanish literature)

Literature and the arts, sure, but also new customs, cultural attitudes, politics, scientific endeavors and such. What is even the zeitgeist of Arabic civilization now?

>By that criterion, virtually everyone but the west is stagnant, including many parts of the west
This is true.

Customs are pretty diverse

Politics have been a bit messy since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and endless western proxy wars. The major factions now are Ba'athist parties, royal dynasties, and those who miss the Ottoman Empire. Also insurrectionists, such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, who are basically warlords making a claim to the caliphate. Then there are the Shia.

Cultural attitudes change but any too contrary to Islam generally don't last.

The current Zeitgeist has been mostly established by Maududi

wikiquote.org/wiki/Abul_A'la_Maududi

However among American Muslims there is more influence from Maududi's pupil, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who greatly respected Maududi but different with him om fundamental issues

>The current Zeitgeist has been mostly established by Maududi
So then it's mostly a LARP hoping to stir the hearts of naive young men into bloody revolt in the name of the fading relevancy and potency of their culture. This basically confirms this line here > As far as I can tell, "Arabic civilization" amounts to just day to day survival and maintaining millennia-old traditions and customs.

I'm not just singling out Islam though when I make these charges against it. You're right in that most of the world is stagnant today by the metrics I'm using, and even parts of the West are as well.

Why all the stagnation though? That's the mystery to me. Why all the clamoring for the revival of traditions? Why is the modern West so undesirable to so many people? What is it that people want that they don't think they can get in this day and age?

The metric you're using is "not taught in my schools". So the simple explanation your schools don't care to teach much foreign literature, music and art, not that such does not exist. Dergham publishes a lot of contemporary Lebanese literature, you most likely have not even heard of any modern Lebanese writer except Nassim Taleb, and only because he left Lebanon

>Why is the modern West so undesirable to so many people?

Because it is vapid, boomer, pop culture, soulless, cultureless, capitalist, hedonist, feminist, sterile, homosexual, individualist, atomized shit

>Not even to itself, considering it has hardly changed in centuries.
You know that the Re-Islamization of the world started around the 80s? It did undergo a massive change, but you have to get out of your western perspektive to see this; and Im only talking about the middle east here.

>So the simple explanation your schools don't care to teach much foreign literature, music and art, not that such does not exist.
Weren't you complaining about liberals before? if Western schools were to teach more about foreign literature, music and art, that would make them more liberal. Make up your mind.

>vapid, soulless, cultureless, hedonist, sterile
I feel the same way towards people who are anti-Western in the 21st century.

>capitalist, feminist, individualist, atomized
None of these are inherently bad. There are only some disagreeable implementations of them.

>boomer, pop culture
The former is a product of the latter.

>homosexual
Definitely not exclusive to the West.

It's called talking shit and not wanting to get hit.

I did not make any suggestion about your schools, I just answered your question

Yes homosexuality exists elsewhere, as do drugs, but like drugs it is criminal or at least not sanctioned by marriage and parades