Is it possible to reconcile Nietzsche and Marx?

Read Bataille

Attached: 20842.jpg (200x203, 8K)

Sorel

(((Jason krevarik)))

As both a Nietzschean and a Marxist this topic is my favorite.

First of all Marxism isn't really a political orientation it's a detailed economic and social analysis of capitalism's internal structure. The most important thing about Marx's analysis is that he doesnt present any moral arguements in favor or against capitalism. He simply describes its mechanism. In other words it is beyond good and evil.

Now Nietzsche hated socialist fervently mostly for 2 reasons. 1 they were full of resontemont. They were always trying to feel moral and good for being poor and hating the evil rich oppressors for having what they desired. He saw this as the ultimate worst thing you can do. 2 it generally called for and sanctions the leveling out, mob mentality, mass control. That was also everything he hated.

The way to resolve the 2 is realize everything about marx's analysis of why capitalism makes everything inauthentic and will collapse is absolutely correct and that nietzsche is correct in that there always must be exploitation, cruelty, and hierarchy in order for art and beauty to flourish. Theoretically the greatest society would have two castes of masters who focus on beauty, liberal arts and mastering themselves and a caste of STEM proles that control and handle all of production via labor time based computer system with individual factories left to run and manage themselves at a democratic local level.

Attached: Mads-Mikkelsen-in-Hannibal-665626.jpg (590x350, 19K)

Liberal and modernist are ph positions describe either without using the word

wouldn't the proles just kill the masters?

The entirety of French Nietzscheanism is dedicated in part to this. See also Accelerationism.

Dunno, but socialism divorced itself from slave morality after they gained power.

As Peterson found out recently, Marxism doesn't call for levelling out, or a forced equality. Those things do exist in certain theories, and a few attempts at implementation; however, it is good to remember that Marxism is not the same as revolutionary strategy and the answers to the "OK, now what?" that follows on from Marx's critique of capitalism are many and varied

Nick Land, is for example, both a Marxist and Nietzschean, yet remains stridently against socialism and revolutionary communism.

Marx is a non-entity. Stop giving him value.

>First of all Marxism isn't really a political orientation it's a detailed economic and social analysis of capitalism's internal structure. The most important thing about Marx's analysis is that he doesnt present any moral arguements in favor or against capitalism. He simply describes its mechanism. In other words it is beyond good and evil.

yeah that's about as shitty a reading of Marx as you can earnestly get

What about reconciling Marx and Trump?

I want to cum deep inside your ancient cunny.

>Nietzsche
which book is his best? people keep jerking off to that guy so I wanna find out what's going on

Bump

Nietzsche's theory of civilization's history being the history of "the milestone man" is fundamentally opposed to Marx's theory, so no. Marx wants to reduce class struggle; Nietzsche wants to intensify it. It doesn't matter that both of them oppose the state, because they seek opposite ends.

In what way. Explain.

99% of his work is looking at capitalism. And he says frequently that the fact that Capitalism works on exploitation is not at all an argument against capitalism. His real arguments against it are just that it will eventually fall and that the workers will have to take control.

Most brainlets think that all marx talked about was how capitalism was evil and about how good communism will be. This is because the only have the time and IQ to read the communist manifesto which is a small pamphlet designed to incite people rather than a solid characterization of his thinking on a broader level.

99% of his work talks about capitalism. He sees communism as a distant inevitability and doesnt bother describing it besides talking about what it isn't. Which is why Lenin et. all had a lot of room to play with in terms of implementation.

I doubt it. People will only kill their masters if they believe themselves to be just as good as them. If masters hold themselves to a high standard of excellence and promote the distinction between them they will be happy to suffer for their masters.

All life is suffering but the only true pain is suffering without purpose. The masters are the purpose of society.

Also it's basically communism so the people will all have a high standard of living and control over their own basic resources.

You are a non-entity. End yourself.

They really didnt though and that is why they failed. In all their media it is about being weak and fighting the big bad evil oppressor. But of course there was no more oppressor and thus the fervour for the communist system waned in turn with their lack of hatred for the capitalists. Eventually it got to the point in the 80's or 90's where anyone who actually was a true communist was almost looked down upon as simple. In the truest sense nihilism follows socialism.

Beyond good and evil and a geneology of morality.

Dont listen to anyone that tells you zarathustra. You cant read zarathustra without reading all of his other work at least twice over.

Attached: D_98QnSXsAEvMQ0.jpg (800x562, 61K)

Nietzsche himself often talks about how things that appear exact opposite can actually be closely related. You are right though that their views of the historical processes are directly opposed, however it is not necessary to take everything both philosophers said as 100% true in order to "reconcile" them. Their view of the historical process informed their starting points but it isn't the totality of their ideas.

>Their view of the historical process informed their starting points but it isn't the totality of their ideas.
Not sure Nietzsche would agree with that epistemological notion. I don't see how you would reconcile them though, even if you went forward with that notion. What's Dionysian about Marx at all?

nietzsche: everyone can become a CEO
marx: everyone together can hang a CEO

imagine the dust

Nietzsche hated capitalism. You're thinking of ayn rand who took nietzsche and made it jewish

Marx concerned himself with capitalism.
To reconcile them you simply have to find a society that works in favor of ubermensche and is not shitty tinpot capitalism.

I think the best way you could do it is how I described it here. Basically communism and communist morality for the proles and hierarchy and decadence for the masses.

That said marx himself is far more dionysian that any capitalist alternative. His famous quote a fishermen in the morning a carpenter in the afternoon and a critic in the evening without ever becoming any one of those things is the essence of the dionysian spirit. Having people not becoming something visible, distinct, intelligible, and classifiable is very much a part of marx's goals and in the spirit of dionysus.

Attached: 285px-Ancient_Persian_Clothing_Parthian_Era_200_BC.jpg (285x599, 50K)

It's posts like these that show how disconnected the NEETs on this board are from actual intellectual life. In academic philosophy, Marx Freud, and Nietzsche carry a strong association with one another. They're probably eferencedd and taught together more frequently than they are apart.

Attached: AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png (1067x696, 485K)

Adorno was strongly opposed to Nietzsche

the strong will impose socialism by force

labor has no intrinsic value, and low quality labor no value at all

literally any postmodernist (Baudrillard, Deleuze, Foucault)

Read Kojeve and Bataille. Intro to Hegel's Phenolenology and Accursed Share (Volume 3 contains essays on Nietzsche and Socialism and Marx)

Adorno is a literal nonentity

Attached: 1F690FBD-CE58-4E68-8A9C-7801B503A3C5.jpg (3565x2930, 1.75M)

Attached: 6361CF23-F7EE-4C19-9C10-133B88198110.jpg (3866x2898, 2.25M)

Attached: 2B82C8F8-D8F6-4E6D-A04F-03CCE703B263.jpg (3836x2874, 2.36M)

Attached: 4E396DAE-F76A-48D6-95EA-F7200F99B0F8.jpg (3614x2712, 1.75M)

The only proper synthesis of nietzche is into a marxist understanding

Attached: 2D1B7C03-EF03-4600-83E3-0301564AA457.jpg (4032x3024, 2.55M)

Labor has negative value

Based comment. Cringe pic.

Reconciling Nietzsche and Marxism is easy since Marxism isn't directly tied with communism. It's just an analysis of capitalism. Advocating communism to replace capitalism isn't part of Marxism.

Adorno was also strongly opposed to the philosophies of Hegel and Kant, because like Nietzsche they expressed bourgeois interests. However, each of them had a really essential influence on Adorno's thought. Nietzsche especially inspired Adorno's characteristic style and opposition to systematic philosophy.

I was really thinking of Horkheimer as a prototypical Marx-Nietzsche-Freud guy though

>Marxism isn't directly tied with communism. It's just an analysis of capitalism. Advocating communism to replace capitalism isn't part of Marxism.
This is the opinion of people whose only engagement of Marx has been listening to boomer anglophone academics who haven't read Marx themselves, but parrot the same lies that their own professors told them.

>Having people not becoming something visible, distinct, intelligible, and classifiable is very much a part of marx's goals and in the spirit of dionysus

Can you describe further what you mean? What do you mean by a person being something non-classifiable?

Also, why communism for the proles?

Foucault and Deleuze were Nietzscheans, but not Marxists. Baudrillard was pretty distant from either of them.

>Nietzsche hated capitalism
Gonna need a source for that faggot. He never explicitly spoke about economics at all as far as I know.

This is from Dawn of Day:

>Poverty, cheerfulness, and independence—it is possible to find these three qualities combined in one individual; poverty, cheerfulness, and slavery—this is likewise a possible combination: and I can say nothing better to the workmen who serve as factory slaves; presuming that it does not appear to them altogether to be a shameful thing to be utilised as they are, as the screws of a machine and the stopgaps, as it were, of the human spirit of invention. Fie on the thought that merely by means of higher wages the essential part of their misery, i.e. their impersonal enslavement, might be removed! Fie, that we should allow ourselves to be convinced that, by an increase of this impersonality within the mechanical working of a new society, the disgrace of slavery could be changed into a virtue! Fie, that there should be a regular price at which a man should cease to be a personality and become a screw instead! Are you accomplices in the present madness of nations which desire above all to produce as much as possible, and to be as rich as possible? Would it not be your duty to present a counter-claim to them, and to show them what large sums of internal value are wasted in the pursuit of such an external object?

There are aphorisms in pretty much all of his books that speak against the modern (read: economic, liberal, capitalistic) values and ideas that are displacing the aristocratic ones which, in Nietzsche's view, are responsible for all of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Nietzsche doesn't straightforwardly support those aristocratic values either. He sees a sort of necessity in their collapse. Similarly, he also despises socialism.

>summarize the books in a Yea Forums post so I don't have to read them or even an academic article about them

Kojeve was a Stalinist and–what's worse–an existentialist.
Bataille was a sex pervert. Lacan inseminated his wife in order to fulfill Bataille's cuck fetish.

Attached: 1565748578515.jpg (776x851, 107K)

Deleuze was writing a book on Marx before he an heroed

Based

Derrida and Peter Singer have also written shitty books about Marx. That doesn't make them Marxists.

To answer OP, you don't have to agree with everything a philosopher says to cite them as an influence and can mix thoughts as much as you please so long as it is justified in your own system -- as such, your question is retarded.

>No true scotsman
Neck yourself, tankie / /pol/tard

You've got no clue what a no true scotsman fallacy actually is. Besides, in those two books, both Singer and Derrida claimed to agree with Marx about basically nothing. Deleuze's antagonistic opposition to both the ethos and content of Marxist philosophy/social science isn't something that he was shy about expressing. He certainly agreed with Marx's political goals, but not with his ideas.

>The Will to Capital
Obviously.

Attached: Nietzsche187a-jpg--198384-jpg--Karl-Marx-jpg.jpg (300x400, 20K)

The Marxist labor theory of value doesn't claim that labor has intrinsic value.

Since when?

Since forever. At least read Value, Profit, and Price, or the first four chapters of Capital before commenting.

yeah if deleuze were a marxist you'd know

>The Gay Capital
> Also Sprach Capital

*Also Sprach Kapital

It's even fairly easy.

The ruling class are not a powerful or active type. They are victors of an arbitrary game. They are not masters, they are triumphant slaves. They are reactive beings who stake their identity and power in the affirmation of the slavish proletariat. A Marxist revolution of the proletariat requires the kind of new active and self-determining consciousness that Nietzsche prophesies.

Attached: foucault.jpg (750x551, 405K)

There are pretty obvious, though implicit, ethical underpinnings to Marx's writings. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate that capitalist society actively hinders the realization of the moral principles that were central to the German and English philosophy of his day. There's also a heavy influence of Aristotilean virtue ethics. There are certain passages that might suggest a pretty vulgar opposition to morality, but a more wholistic reading shows a great deal of subtlety and depth in dealing with moral and ethical issues. "Materialism and Morality" by Max Horkheimer is an excellent essay on this topic.

Fuck off namefag

Didn’t Marx say let us help people and have a more equal society
And didn’t neechee say everyone is alpha male you are an alpha male and you are an alpha male and you are an alpha male

cursed reddit thread

>Didn’t Marx say let us help people and have a more equal society
No
>And didn’t neechee say everyone is alpha male you are an alpha male and you are an alpha male and you are an alpha male
No

Hey bro whats it like being so wrong

>Having people not becoming something visible, distinct, intelligible, and classifiable is very much a part of marx's goals and in the spirit of dionysus.
Sounds like a misunderstanding of the Dionysian, which is orgiastic as per Nietzsche. There is no orgy without visible, distinct, intelligible, and classifiable participants; if everything was reduced to one substance, the only thing left to have an orgy with would be the self, which isn't an orgy at all.

I asked him to clarify two of the ideas in his post, not to summarize any books.

The übermensch is capable in a true communist society, which would entail mass murder of stupid parts of the population. View a communist ideal with a bunch of Marcus Auerlius and Theseus that aren't incentived by money, but human prosperity not the pathetic capri short shaved head SJW academics that are just jealous of the success of Europe, but as a bunch of intelligent and fit Europeans that are incentived by prosperity..incentivied

>beauty, liberal arts and mastering themselves and a caste of STEM proles that control and handle all of production via labor time based computer system with individual factories left to run and manage themselves at a democratic local level.

Don't really understand this. In Capitalism, the master got his legitimacy from the ownership of the means of production, and the State enforce this ownership in case the working class contest it.
In your example, if the STEM proles control and handle the production, what is the function of the master? In Capitalism, the Capitalist profit from his private ownership of the means of production, but at least he has a function: he oversees production.
I don't see the function of the master in you example.

Your example is kind of close to feudalism, but even in feudalism, the Lord had to fight to protect the serf, should someone invade the land.

In short, in your example, the masters seem pretty useless. Beauty, liberal arts... That is not enough in my opinion to justify being a social class, especially an exploiting social class.

I see more a mode of production organized by algorythms integrated in distrubuted networks.
The distributed network will manage and "own" the means of production, and allocate the production regarding the needs of every person and organization. So no one will own the mean of productions. Think something like a P2P network but way more elaborated and complex. Think about the internet. Is there a master on the internet? Nop. Some people take advantage of others, sure, but there is no master, like someone who tells you what to do.

There will only be one class of people, but they'll differ on charisma. Thus, the famous actor, engineer, or professional sportsman, will have way more social success than the average joe. But the average Joe won't live on the street and have to beg for money, even if he is completely worthless. He won't have to wage his life away, and obey a stupid boss. Most likely, people will live more and more in VR. That's scary in a way, not blade runner scary, because Capitalism will be long gone in 100 year, contrary to what is described in most futuristic movies, but scary because people will get absorbed in VR.
Also, the streets will always be empty. No more work, everybody inside, having fun in some artificial world.

this is among the worst written and worst reasoned posts i've ever seen on Yea Forums, congratulations

the hannibal makes me wonder if it's subtle bait

Instead of asking random Yea Forums faggots to "clarify" one of the most central theses of as important a philosopher as Karl Marx, why don't you read him yourself? Or at a bare minimum something like his SEP page?

It's the equivalent to Athenian and Greek society. Slaves outnumbered the athenian populace by a huge margin and handled almost all of the day to day production but they were still able to control them.
I think the key point in not fomenting rebellion is just in making sure the people have their needs met. If people are at least alive, fed, and entertained they will very rarely throw their weight against any revolution that they identify with giving them that security.

But even beyond that I reject your basic premise. In any given situation modern day capitalism, feudalism, rome, anything, anywhere the ultimate power is always with the masses. If at any time they all decided not to take it any more they could easily overthrow any regime. What really keeps people in power is people's belief in that power and the legitimacy of it. What you cited as reasons the upper classes have maintained power are really just more of excuses and explanations to justify their position and not the reason in and of themselves.

But you're right they do not have any purpose in society. They are the purpose of the society.

Attached: 2bd(1).jpg (768x960, 79K)

Is my synthesis of Cockshott's cybernetic communism and Nietzschean aristocracy too much for you to handle?

In conclusion have sex and dilate

Attached: giphy.gif (434x289, 868K)

This is why you should read Deleuze

You're on the right train of thought here. Paul Cockshott has written a lot of great books about the subject as well as a really well written blog. The basic idea is to have individual factories managed at a democratic local level but all the inputs and production quotas are handled by an algorithm which will be constantly simulating plans and goals for the future. In terms of payment the pay is based on labor hours so if you worked 10 hours at a job you would be able to buy any combination of products that cost 10 labor hours to produce (though you'd actually have to take out a chunk of those resources to fund non-productive but needed parts of society like welfare, military, art, etc.).

Attached: hannibal-nbc.jpg (1912x1072, 122K)

Go back to /pol/ or reddit with your moralism

I mean by not putting people into boxes of "welder" and having them spend their life completely devoted to that trade. Marx wanted occupations as such to disappear. He wanted people to be able to do whatever work they felt suited them and needed to be done for the community. He wanted people to return to the complex, strange, and versatile beast we are and not something that can be easily put into a spreadsheet or census data. The same can be said for his views on capitalist alienation.

As for why should communism be for the proles? The higher men shouldn't ever have to concern themselves with work or production. They should dedicate everything in life to beauty and refinement.

Attached: 18HANNIBAL3-tmagArticle.jpg (592x329, 24K)

Foucault just took genealogy and epistemology from N and then threw the rest away.

I dont disagree at all. It's fair to say he lays out a picture of capitalism that nobody could morally support and he just let's the reader's own innate morality guide them to his position.

But it is all implied and not stated and his entire body of work still is totally compelling and comprehensible from a perspective of cold hearted rationality as well.

Really I over emphasized the lack of morality in Marx more due to the general populations over emphasis of the inherent morality of Marx as if his whole body of work was just "capitalists are big meanies that have stuff I want and that's why they should be killed"

Attached: 0_UOiHGCf2XxxNt-K2.jpg (1280x720, 62K)

I've been looking for a good way to describe exactly what you just said now so elegantly. But it pretty much is totally true.

If you write about me, that doesn't mean you're a faggot too, you triple dumb double retard.

>marx wants to reduce class struggle
are you actually retarded.

Attached: cringe.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

100%. anyone who uses the word "liberal" to describe Nietzsche should immediately throw their laptop into the sea

exactly this. thank you user for putting it into concise terms.

Attached: lenin_1.jpg (600x850, 84K)

literally me

Isn't Anti-Oedipus a try to get rid of Marxist materialists approach?

I won't contradict you, but i'll just say that it the future elite must really found a completely new legitimacy. According to you based on beauty, intellegence, self mastery, and they must be really, really good at it.

Because todays western elite is a joke. Macron is hated in France, German people are fed up with Merkel (and americans don't like her) and even the far right begins to view Trump as a traitor.
The whole american elite is considered as pedo satanist liars. People know they did the 9/11.
So yeah, if you said a new elite of super software programmers, having all a minimum IQ of 150, like a whole class of Linus Torvalds and Bjarne Stroustrup, i would say maybe. A whole class of these kind of people is difficult to create and sustain thought. Unless Capital, genius cannot be transmitted hereditary.
For me, the authority will come form the algorithms. Not people. It's already the case. Do you contest your car GPS if it is freshly updated? I don't. Same will happen for production.

Are you partial to Stalinists, existentialists, perverts, or all three?

None. Are you a redditor or /pol/tard?(or from any of its colonies on Yea Forums)

Marx was Nietzsche if he’d done something useful with his life

Why are facist babies so insecure that they’re forced to make threads about Marx 24/7?

Nietzsche's entire ontology basically disallows for any sort of dialectical materialism, so no. Not unless you're going to attempt an ad-hoc synthesis of his framework with Marx's analysis of social totality, as Foucault tried and failed to do.

Neither. You and I both know that there's nothing less marxist than existentialism and nothing less Nietzschean than losing your beautiful wife to a creepy psychoanalytic cult leader because you wouldn't stop writing shitty porn about 16 year olds raping priests.

Attached: 26165517_1752323874819277_1591195539027996752_n.png.jpg (526x864, 56K)

no, AO is explicitly materialist, and makes use of a model of history developing under the body of Capital, it is very Marxist

Foucault was a Marxist who studied under Althusser, he even joined the communist party in school. He ended up very unorthodox but he had a strong background in Marxist theory. Baudrillard, as a nihilist, had a deep fascination with Nietzsche and wrote on him quite a bit, he also literally tried to fix the ltv through sign value. Deleuze was working on a boom when he died, le grandeur de Marx...

Lacan is a genius.

He never lost his wife.

No one cares.

Criticize the ideas not the people.

Hegel reconciles Nietzsche and Marx.

(Do not reply if you are a brainlet who has not read at least one book by each author)

good bait

Attached: B8.png (273x537, 45K)

Bataille lost is wife to Lacan. Lacan inseminated her while they were still married.

Isn't getting cucked and going crazy Nietzschean? It's what the man did. And Marx was into cuck stuff too right? Ever read Origin of the Family?

You don't lose a woman. They're like birds you cannot cage.

except they used to cage them

Attached: fabio-fabbi-in-the-harem.jpg (480x302, 76K)

Nietzsche was against that

who knows, he was down with whipping them

Attached: 6AA20F0A-49E5-451F-9B1C-0EEBF10A1087.jpg (800x450, 83K)

Communist politics do not exhaust the scope of Marxism. Foucault had lots of Marxist professors, including Althusser and Hyppolite. Heaven knows that taking a course with a philosopher doesn't permanently tie a student to all of their positions and ideas. His actual doctoral advisor, Georges Canguilhem, wasn't a
Marxist. If you actually study Foucault, you'll see that attacking the Marxist way of doing things that was popular in academia at the time was a really central part of his project.

Hey. We're not analytics here. Let's not get lost in semantics.

>attacking the Marxist way of doing things
literally every good Marxist did this, this was the whole shtick of the Frankfurt school.

You really haven't understood the Frankfurt School if you think this. Foucault's work is a direct attack on the entire Marxist tradition, especially the influence of the Frankfurt School.
Calling Foucault a Marxist is far more than a semantical mistake.

Vaneigem reconciles Nietzsche and Marx in Revolution of Everyday Life

>1. Foucault’s Early Marxism
>Foucault began his career as a Marxist, having been influenced by his mentor, the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, as a student to join the French Communist Party. Though his membership was tenuous and brief, Foucault’s later political thought should be understood against this background, as a thought that is both under the influence of, and intended as a reaction to, Marxism.
>Foucault himself tells us that after his early experience of a Stalinist communist party, he felt sick of politics, and shied away from political involvements for a long time. Still, in his first book, which appeared in 1954, less than two years after Foucault had left the Party, his theoretical perspective remained Marxist. This book was a history of psychology, published in English as Mental Illness and Psychology. In the original text, Foucault concludes that mental illness is a result of alienation caused by capitalism. However, he excised this Marxist content from a later edition in 1962, before suppressing publication of the book entirely; an English translation of the 1962 edition continues to be available only by an accident of copyright (MIP vii). Thus, one can see a trajectory of Foucault’s decisively away from Marxism and indeed tendentially away from politics.
-iep

It's pretty obvious: they feel threatened. They also have a lot of cognitive dissonance. Far right: promoting Capitalism, but being against immigration.

Chad Lacan.

Backstabbing is slave morality. Honesty is master morality.

If everyone was nietzschean it would be more like the relationship between coriolanus and aufidius. Hatred, love, respect, and honesty all together in one while either fighting together or fighting each other.

The idea isn't for either the engineers or algorithms to run the show. They run the production and mateinence in society but the upper caste will be more like a parasitic organism. They will take whatever they want whenever they want.
The idea would he for a large group of nietzschean to foment communist revolution when the time is right and then use it to enslave the population in a comfortable servitude. Most likely they would act a figurehead administrators over a city or large area and would "own" it in the same sense that shareholders own a corporation while the CEOs run the actual business. The upper caste would be free to spend their free time achieving the peak of human perfection and artistic production. Most likely they would have to have a key role in controlling the military possibly sending their youth into the role of field officers. This would also prevent the rise of too much decadence and effemenancy which can happen in ruling classes.

This is all just my idea of an ideal society but of course It will never happen.

Attached: bdc4d2e28427c28bb614be0c059f988c.jpg (907x1363, 116K)

>This is all just my idea of an ideal society but of course It will never happen.
No, because the distributed networks will own the city. Not humans. A computer doesn't have living standards. It only needs electricity. Thus the surplus labor it "eats" will be very small, almost insignificant.

I'm not sure how what you quoted relates to your argument but I disagree.

You can think about it owning things but at the end of the day it's just math telling people the optimal way to allocate resources.

Either way production is below my concern as long as the society is stable, and productive. All that really matters is that the upper class has enough to allow it to flourish.

Attached: hannibal.jpg (680x478, 42K)

>claims to be Marxist
>ideal society
Brotherly moment

I wish to breed with a Saudi woman!

Me too mate. The tits are amazing on them

The upper class is worthless. The bourgeoisie don’t descend from any nobles and any semblance of that culture has been eroded away.

I agree entirely. The bougsoise are weak cowards that need to be slaughtered asap. Ancient nobility is dead but nobility has been extinguished and risen before. All you need is a high target to aim for and a great excess of cruelty. With that you'll naturally sow the seeds of beauty and high culture.

This is of course also why hannibal is the perfect human specimen.

Attached: ebqh2m6xfgcycacpvgmr.jpg (833x452, 32K)

No. Nietzsche rejects the tradition that produced Joachim of Fiore. Like asking if Christ and Odysseus can be reconciled.

>weak
>high
>beauty
>culture
>perfect

All spooks caused by either genetic lack of empathy or early childhood trauma. I prescribe cognitive behavioral therapy.