Why Leftists Are Stunned At The Wise Words Of Friedrich Nietzsche

If any of you have ever studied philosophy, you have most likely heard of the German naturalist Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), infamous for his proclamation that “God is dead!” and his philosophy regarding the will to power. These aspects of his philosophy alone make it one of the most masculine philosophies to ever exist.

In a nutshell, Nietzsche believes that “God,” or all of the cultural standards and “truths” that are imposed upon us are bullshit, and that it is up to man to forge his own destiny and to determine what he believes to be right and wrong. Is this not what the manosphere’s inhabitants strive to do?

In regards to the will to power, Nietzsche believes that the ultimate goal of life is to “…strive to grow, spread, seize, [and to] become predominant,” (Beyond Good and Evil, §259). He claims that it is expansion which gives us a sense of fulfillment; man must constantly strive to improve himself in every way possible, whether it be physically, financially, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, or by learning a language, traveling to mysterious, far-off lands, or by taking up a new hobby.

Despite his insightful thoughts on life’s purpose, however, this is not what I plan to focus on in this article. Instead, I have chosen to write about…

Why Leftists hate Nietzsche (his opinion on women)


Even if you haven’t heard of Friedrich Nietzsche, you may have heard about his views on women; many regard them as extremely offensive, hateful, and deeply misogynistic. Dozens of modern day pseudo-intellectuals love to skewer Nietzsche’s view on women, painting him as an irredeemably angry and bitter old man, despite the fact that half of these so called “intellectuals” are probably divorced and the other half are probably in unhappy marriages.

One of the more popular Nietzschean quips which is thrown around is: “Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent,” which is generally true. Another, more offensive quote which is oft thrown around is: “When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality,” which is also generally true. Are you starting to see why leftists hate him so much?

A Lesser Known Passage

All of the hate that Nietzsche gets aside, he still had a profound level of influence on Western philosophy, and an incredibly accurate insight into the nature of women, over a century before the manosphere even existed. It is my hope that we can learn from this sage’s deep wisdom. Today, I have chosen to analyze one of his lesser known “sexist” passages:

Someone took a youth to a wise man and said: ‘Look, he is being corrupted by women!’ The wise man shook his head and smiled. ‘It is men who corrupt women,’ he exclaimed, ‘and the failings of women should be atoned for and set right in men.

(The Gay Science, §68)

…wait a minute. What? Where’s the rambling on about how women corrupt even the best of men? Of the Delilahs and Jezebels? Where are the truthful words about succubae and gold-diggers? Men are the ones who corrupt women? How is this? Women are the most manipulative creatures on the planet, are they not?


Women are in fact gold diggers, but Nietzsche’s words are still true

The wise man goes on:

‘…for man makes for himself the image of woman, and woman shapes herself according to this image.’ ‘You are too gentle towards women,’ said one in the company; ‘you do not know them!’ The wise man replied, ‘the way of men is will; the way of women is willingness – that is the law of the sexes; truly a hard law for women! All human beings are innocent of their existence; women, however, are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and mercy enough for them?’ ‘Forget oil! Forget gentleness!’ shouted someone else from the crowd; ‘one has to raise women better!’ ‘One has to raise men better,’ said the wise man and beckoned the youth to follow him – but the youth did not follow him.

(The Gay Science, §68)

This is quite the opposite of what most men would expect. Instead of harping on women for being manipulative creatures or berating them for their vanity, he blames MEN instead! To those who have fully embraced neomasculine principles, Nietzsche’s words will seem quite sagacious. They peer so deep into the psyche of men and into the nature of women with so few words.

Men…or women?

In this parable, there are clearly two opposing parties: the wise man (arguably the embodiment of Nietzsche’s opinion) and the foolish villagers who argue that a woman has corrupted some youth.

Ask yourself right now: which are you?

Do you blame women for the state of our society, or do you blame men?

If you blame women, here’s the harsh truth: you’re part of the problem.

“What?” you might ask. “Are most women nowadays not validation-seeking, narcissistic sluts?”

You figured it out!

You figured it out!

They most certainly are, however this is not entirely their fault. It’s not even half their fault. Women are followers, and they accept the path that men have laid down before them. As Nietzsche said: “…the way of men is will; the way of women is willingness.” Men will for certain things to happen, and women are willing to help make these things happen.

How can one expect a woman to be a faithful, chaste, kind-hearted soul, when her father was most likely a pathetic, weak beta male who gave into her every demand? How do you expect her to develop any semblance of humility, when every man who she dates grovels at her feet, and treats her like a goddess?

Those men laid down the path before her; they laid down a path of arrogance, vanity, promiscuity, and misery – and she followed it, for women seldom forge their own paths.

He is laying down the wrong path for her to follow

It’s quite simple, really. When a woman has a strong, masculine father who sets firm boundaries for her, she naturally becomes a feminine nurturer. When she doesn’t have a strong father, she turns to her friends and the media for the guidance which her father has deprived her of.

A slut only becomes a slut when she does not have the firm, masculine guidance which she needs. Nobody can give this to her but a man. It is a man’s responsibility to raise a daughter who is chaste and kind, and who embodies feminine virtues. If he fails to do this, he has deprived his daughter of the joy that comes with being a faithful wife and mother.

Again, Nietzsche’s words ring true.

Advanced frame manipulation: nuanced game

Your frame, in essence, is the way that you interpret reality – it’s what you feel, what you think, what you believe, it’s the way that you understand and navigate the world.

For instance, a standard American male’s frame might go something like this: “The world is a scary place. Women want nice guys. Men are perverted assholes. I’m not very special.” Pretty depressing, isn’t it?


Can you guess what this guy’s frame is?

To contrast, a player’s frame might go something like this: “I’m the shit. The world is a playground. Women want confident, assertive men. Most men are fucking pussies, but not me. I’m the shit.”

Do you see the massive difference?

Women want a man who has a strong frame.

Women want to know that their man has a very strong internal sense of purpose, and that he’s 100% confident in himself, but it’s sometimes hard to tell if a man is actually confident, or if he’s just acting that way. So what’s a woman to do?

Shit test you. This is why women shit test men: they want to see if they can shake your frame. When a woman realizes that you have a stronger frame than her, she will slowly accept your frame to be true.

So what does this have to do with Nietzsche?

Again, let us refer to this philosopher’s words: “‘…for man makes for himself the image of woman, and woman shapes herself according to this image.’”

Man creates his image of woman, and she shapes herself accordingly. This is what advanced frame manipulation is.

“But Jon!” I can hear you say, “I’m 35, and I don’t want to fuck sluts anymore. I want to find a wife!”

It doesn’t matter. Frame manipulation works. Men lead, and women follow. If you want your wife to be faithful, then act and think as if she is faithful. Set the frame that she’s a chaste virgin, and she will act like a chaste virgin when she’s with you.

Act as if you expect women to be motherly and nurturing, and your girlfriend will act this way. It’s that simple, and I cannot emphasize this highly simple, yet so-frequently overlooked concept: women shape themselves according to men.

What frame do you think her boyfriend has?

What frame do you think her boyfriend has?

Now, this doesn’t mean that you should come to believe that your woman is actually like this. If you have the frame that she’s a chaste virgin, but when she’s alone she runs into a player with a strong “all girls want to fuck me” frame, it will be very tempting for her to get sucked into his reality. At this point, whether or not she sleeps with him comes down to the values she was raised to value, social pressure, and logistics.

Don’t become delusional. Just because you set a frame for a woman doesn’t mean that she actually becomes what you think she is. Women are chameleons—that’s Nietzsche’s whole point. They follow whichever man has the strongest frame.


I am advocating something known as “reality selection.” In a nutshell, reality selection is training yourself to get rid of disempowering beliefs and learning how to accept empowering beliefs. It’s probably one of the most powerful ways to improve your life, because instead of fixing the external factors (have better posture, work out, eat well, etc.) it fixes the very ROOT of the problem: your negative beliefs about yourself.

I personally used reality selection to reprogram my mind after an abusive childhood left me feeling absolutely worthless, and I’ll be talking more about how you can use reality selection to transform your life once I launch my blog.

One Last Nietzschean Lesson…

If there’s only one lesson I impart to you today, I hope that it is this: we must create more high quality men who embody the principles of neomasculinity if we wish to see the West survive.

“‘Forget oil! Forget gentleness!’ shouted someone else from the crowd; ‘one has to raise women better!’ ‘One has to raise men better,’ said the wise man and beckoned the youth to follow him – but the youth did not follow him.”

The man in the crowd, or many of those new to the manosphere, advocate that we raise women better, and I agree. However the problem is that unless we raise men better, raising women better isn’t even possible. In order to raise women better, our society must value traditional gender differences and have a strong sense of morality. This can only be accomplished by raising men better.

Eventually, feminism will be viewed as a verminous plague which is rotting our culture from the inside out, women will be expected to be maternal nurturers again, and men will reclaim their past glory and honor as the strong, wise providers and protectors that they are.



We must realize that the current state of the West is not the fault of women. Men must step up to the plate. We must embrace neomasculine principles and encourage others to do so as well. We must develop our minds and bodies. We must cultivate core confidence and create rock solid frames. We must fight against the progressivist machine. We must raise men better—even a long-dead German philosopher saw this to be true.

Read More: Parting Words From A Dying Man

220 thoughts on “Why Leftists Are Stunned At The Wise Words Of Friedrich Nietzsche”

  1. “Du gehst zu Frauen? Vergiss die Peitsche nicht!”
    “You’re going to women? Don’t forget the whip!”
    “Der Mann soll zum Kriege erzogen werden und das Weib zur Erholung des Kriegers: alles andre ist Torheit.”
    “The man must be raised for war and the women for the relaxation of the warrior : everything else is foolishness”.

    1. you forgot feminism’s favourite:
      “Everything in woman hath a solution. It is called pregnancy.”

      1. I have seen this quote common attributed to Nietzsche on the Internet, but have never been able to find a source. Can you give a source for it?

      1. I’m curious… how are you a loser? (I know from other comments you’ve taken some bad beats, but you seem intelligent enough to me.)

        1. Just a few of your comments I have read and I grew up without a father too, and my mother is becoming (or always was) a huge obstacle.

        2. I am writing a blog, too. You may like it if you like the comments. Would be glad to have you as a reader and commenter. Link is in my Disqus profile.

        3. Spent about an hour reading your comments on ROK articles. Your views are interesting.
          I will definitely check those blogs of yours soon.

        1. You and your metaphysical nihilism again
          Wake up Tom Arrow!!!
          Life is strive!!
          Biology demands it

      2. It doesn’t matter what I am or am not – your words, good words at that. Regardless, being a loser is a state of mind dude.

      3. It takes a considerable degree of intelligence to be an atheist simply because we have evolved to have a sense of morality and religion and a high degree of reasoning is required to overcome it.
        At the basic definition of success, that of turning resources into children, they for the most part are failures, many being childless. The Mormons easily outperform them. The Mormons have some very silly beliefs, but they work.
        It remains to be seen whether an ideology or philosophy can be developed that is self sustaining. National Socialism is the only one I can think of.
        Many contemporary ideologies, the bulk of feminism and liberalism as well as Laissez-faire market ideology transferred to morality are anti natal.

        1. National Socialism self sustaining? You must be kidding. Millions dead. Dissenters killed. Economy in horrible shape.
          Atheism is nonsense. Religion is nonsense, too, but slightly better nonsense, as it at least does not deny the spiritual realm.
          As for high birth rates, I have no idea, man. But I would say that people have kids when they feel happy and have trust in their self and their future.

        2. The economy worked rather well in National Socialist Germany, they had a such a severe labour shortage leaving school children, especially girls, had to do low end jobs in service industries for at least 5 months eg cleaning or working in hospitals etc.
          To do this they got rid of fractional reserve banking and fiat currency and engaged in barter arrangements to avoid entanglement in international banking. Nothing wrong with debt free treasury issued money. The US ran of it for centuries.
          The economy did suffer but that was due to the effect of war or its lead up: trade boycotts, blockades on trade and finally the war itself.
          I’ve read Adam Tooze whereby he claims economic mismanagement lead to a foreign exchange crisis that was resolved by invading other countries particularly the Soviet Union to obtain their reserves and resources, eg oil and grain.
          I reject him. Fighting a war to defeat France is what caused the deficit to blow out. Blockades caused it as well.
          Now, getting on point, the National Socialists had an ideology of maintaining an economic and social environment to keep the birth rate up to replacement levels and to maintain healthy families.
          Few ideologies have had that.
          The ideology of left-internationalists and right-globalists is to not care about local peoples social and economic environment for reproduction and simply have a high immigration rate (if you can find quality immigrants, which they can’t)

    2. One cannot talk about a philosopher’s view on women, without mentioning Schopenhauer.
      And here’s another of my favourites.

    3. Nietzsche was great. I read his books decades ago and they changed my life.
      Funny I have been saying what he has been saying about men and women repeatedly on this site but it never occurred to me where I got it from.
      This society is where it is because of men. Men created democracy and gave women a vote. From there our problems have increased until we now have a society remaking itself into the image of a woman, complete with a nanny state and safety at all costs.

        1. That is very intriguing, thank you.
          I have just discovered that you can get some of Nietszche’s books for free on Kindle or practically the entire lot for about $3.

  2. “It’s quite simple, really. When a woman has a strong, masculine father who sets firm boundaries for her, she naturally becomes a feminine nurturer. When she doesn’t have a strong father, she turns to her friends and the media for the guidance which her father has deprived her of” I think this is a very naive and simplistic idea. What exactly is a strong, masculine father anyway? What does this concept mean to a girl? It’s a well known fact that teenage girls tend to rebel against these types of fathers anyway, so I’m not entirely convinced about this nugget of wisdom.
    Additionally, as Jung documented in his book, Aspects of the Masculine, which is a collection of articles he’d written on the topic over his long career. Sex roles tend to reverse and internalize during the second half of peoples lives, with women often taking on externally a much more masculine persona after middle age and the same with men mellowing and taking on a more feminine persona after 40.
    If you understand this psychological point you’ll realize that most fathers will be into their mellower phase during the most formative years in their daughters’ lives. So, there will be a tendency for fathers to be naturally more “conciliatory” with them by this stage. I don’t think denouncing fathers who don’t go around their homes eating raw meat with a shot gun strapped over their backs as being Beta-failures gives any real understanding or insight into this important issue.

    1. I was on a dating site that catered to the niche of military men. It was fascinating that it attracted certain types of women-alot of southern belles and nurses. Most of them would say-there is just something about a man willing to give his life for his country.

  3. Interesting article. But Nietzsche, for better or worse, is used by both sides. I believe this is largely intentional and has to do with him being a big fan of Heraclitus that old flamer.
    You say that “Women are chameleons—that’s Nietzsche’s whole point.” and this is exactly correct. But remember, for Nietzsche it is not just women that are chameleons….but also men, governments and, in fact, truth itself. Nietzsche says that truth is a coin which can, over time, lose its embossing and be recreated with new value. He called this transvaluation of values. It is what he believes the Jews, through their terrorist group…Christians…did to the Roman nobility. By claiming that there was no more Good-Bad but rather Good-Evil and that which the Roman had considered good (strength, dominance, masculinity, etc.) was now evil and what was bad (meekness, gentleness, charity) was now good. They did this through the #1 jewish terrorist, Christ. He points to Rome and asks, if you don’t believe, who the Romans are still, 2 millennia later, bowing to…three jews and a jewess.
    At the same time he also says that the world didn’t get interesting until the jews came into it and that anti-semites ought to be put to death and then the german nationalists after that.
    But back to the point of chameleon because it is here that the real crux of things is. Remember, Feminist theorists usually recognize Nietzsche, misogynist though they feel he is, as the very beginning of feminism. His belief that truth was malleable is what makes feminism possible.
    When Nietzsche says that God is dead he kills not only god but also objective truth. The author here does a good job of showing the positive side of that. As men we are left to make determinations through will of what is right and what the world will be like.
    However, look at the other side. Bruce Jenner can decide to be Kaitlyn. Women can decide that they don’t need men. All the absurd things that women in general and feminists in particular are bringing to the table is made possible through Nietzsche’s massive influence…the idea that truth itself is a social construct made by will.
    Because this is the case, the Patriarchy is only real through the will of men. When men start becoming feminized the patriarchy collapses and, well, look out your windows folk…here is the result.
    Moreover, I believe Nietzsche is correct. Feminists are making the argument that they don’t have to be xyz because that isn’t their truth…they can just decide their truth. Yes. I mean, not so much when men are being men because that works out better for everyone but with no opposition women aren’t opposing the patriarchy or toppling it, they merely deflated it and removed all the truth value from it only to inflate an enormous dildo to shove up each others cunts while men shrivel and become nothing.
    I guess my point here is to be careful with Nietzsche. Like Heraclutus he is a sage of fire and like fire he is never in one place, but always in flux and tends to get out of hand and burn those who think they have control over it.

      1. “women aren’t opposing the patriarchy or toppling it, they merely
        deflated it and removed all the truth value from it only to inflate an
        enormous dildo to shove up each others cunts while men shrivel and
        become nothing”
        You were a gender studies professor?
        Interesting points about nietzsche and will (to truth). Feminism doesn’t appear to be doing particularly well on that point, but unfortunately they don’t appear to have realised that. Feminism like Nietzsche may well be going mad: is that a failure of will or of reality-orientation?

        1. No, thankfully I stayed out of gender studies departments.
          Remember that with Nietzsche there is no difference in a failure of will and a failure or reality orientation since reality it self, and it’s orientation, is a result of the will.

        2. Also, how well feminists are doing imposing their will on the world is a topic for debate, but while I hate those cunts I have to admit that i live in a world that has been shaped and created and imbued with “truth” from feminism when only 2 generations ago my grandfather would have been surprised to see a woman in his secretary pool with crooked seams in her stockings

        3. so then feminism, if it fails, is a failure of will, but at the same time we seem to be predicting that failure as a consequence of their feeble constitutions – their act of will if that is true fails because of a lack of reality-orientation. That could in itself be seen as a failure of will (for example a failure of SMART – measurable, realistic goals etc) but then will as an idea doesn’t appear to accept any limits. For all his greatness Nietzsche like feminism placed potentially impossible burdens for the (slender?) shoulders of mere human beings
          PS I didn’t actually think you were a gender studies prof

        4. The feminist will has certainly terraformed the modern environment to quite an extent, although they’ve had a fair bit of help from governments, the left etc. We are beginning to see cracks forming though now. “They” will try to paper over those cracks, and in doing so that too will be an act of will. But whatever happens my feeling is that at some point hopefully sooner rather than later that act of will will start to buckle. There are those though who would change absolutely any and every variable to enable it to succeed: but would you even have anything left of woman if that happens. All human effort is vulnerable. All human effort ultimately fails.

        5. Right and she’d be called a “secretary” and not “my assistant”…She’d get him coffee on demand and call and get him dinner reservations without any guff..

        6. Thats just it for every feminist there is a man in power enforcing her silly whims. She falsely accused you of rape? Here come 2 burly police officers to throw you in jail and a judge(likely a man) to convict you, and a prison guard(man) to watch over you. Its weak willed men allowing women to persuade them that do the damage.

        7. Many weak willed men, but there are also those elite men / groups who believe their will is served by feminism

        8. yes, they have help from governments which are propped up by them which is creating the atmosphere on and on ad infinitum. And that is just it, this huge interconnected whole which, as Shakespeare says, signifies nothing needs to be molded and stamped into something through a force of will and when men stop doing that someone or something else will pick up the mantle.
          You are right about the ultimate failure of human effort…but that is what makes it all so fun isn’t it? Like one big etch a sketch.

        9. I am fortunate that in my current industry we have been, while not immune, at least a little insulated from this. I still have someone to make me dinner reservations and my office still uses secretary for secretaries. My assistant is a young man who is training to one day have my job. My secretary handles phone calls, filing, photo copies, scanning etc. I do not think she has ever made me coffee but she will go to starbucks if I ask nicely. My grandfather had a girl in the office who knew what he liked in his coffee (cream in the morning scotch in the afternoon) and he didn’t need to ask for it.

        10. “signifies nothing needs to be molded and stamped into something through a
          force of will and when men stop doing that someone or something else
          will pick up the mantle.”
          I’d say yes and no. Where men are failing to step up then the feminist consequences are catastrophic. On the other hand driving the world forward ever harder through the sheer force of will, individual or collective, I’m not sure that’s necessarily good either. Maybe instead of ‘progress’ and the will to power we just need to listen a little bit more closely to the nothingness. For a start less of a height to fall from when we do stumble

        11. That’s one of the reasons I’m liking my time in Korea. Feminism is given little truck here.

        12. I’m not sure either. What I am sure of is that for Nietzsche, you are already in trouble since good itself is a malleable concept with no truth in the traditional way.
          It is why I was careful to preface my comment in such a way as to make sure I was speaking strictly from the nietzschean pov.
          For my own part I think you might be right but I also think it is equally valid to just drop out of the whole process and watch as a spectator while enjoying the bacchiann pleasures of the end of days

        13. I’ve never been anywhere in asia. Korea always seemed very interesting to me though.

        14. Reminds me of a manager I had who just got back from an executive MBA at Stanford. I asked him what was the most important thing he learned there.
          His answer – “Perception is reality.”
          He was fired 10 years later for fudging some environmental report data on fish mortality and drew the company a $22 million fine from the EPA.

    1. The way feminists circumvented Nietzsche’s “truth” about the differences between the sexes was to invent the concept of gender. Gender is a malleable concept that’s open to interpretation and invention unlike sex which defined strictly by our biology. However, I don’t agree that this social construct called gender equates to saying that truth is just another fluid concept open to the whims of post-modern interpretation. The only “truth” that is (and note I use parenthesis) will be the one that’s based on the subjective and erroneous concept of gender, and, this is a crucial distinction to make, and one that’s conveniently ignored by many post modern academics. This is not the same concept.
      Even, his concept of the chameleon like nature of human beings and the greater institutions we create in society is I fear some what overstated. He was personally attracted to the idea of chaos and invention but never provided a clear definition of what this means, especially, the negative side of this concept when societies break down during times of crisis and people die of starvation or through civil strive. These considerations seemed strangely remote, either intentionally or otherwise from his deliberations.
      Additionally, when he states with typical hyperbole ” that there are no truths but only perceptions of the truth” it seems obvious that the disease of his mind that he suffered from most of life has got the upper hand. To state this, and for his fellow-travelers to repeat this mantra like its some type of cosmic proclamation nowadays is to ignore the fact that the truth and its falsification are the working concepts that are used by the hard sciences on a daily basis to confirm facts in an objective manner. Equally, even concepts pertaining to subjective truths are not mere “truths of perceptions” that can be interpreted on the whims of an isolated individual who wants to invent their “own truth”. This viewpoint which is very common and fits in with the “whatever” mode of pop culture is pure unadulterated nonsense. About 99% of the empirical knowledge we know about the world is based on agreed truths about the world that we all accept. For example we all know what the color blue looks like, we all know the truth about the rain making us feel damp, we all know the truth that book will move a certain way if we apply sufficient force to it etc.
      I think much of Nietzsche reads well along the surface, but, the more you think about his ideas, the more they don’t stack up against critical appraisal.

      1. the one that bothers me most is ‘the eternal return’. Some seem to think it is a literary rather than a ‘philosophical’ idea but this idea of aristocratic / aesthetic affirmation is a very troubling one. I would also point out that feminism’s entire raison d’etre is antithetical to such an aesthetics. As Paglia has pointed out feminists are almost invariably philistines

        1. The eternal return was conceived as his unique post-Christian answer to his own Christianity “I am the solver of my own riddles”. This cyclical universe was neither novel or original and people like W.B Yeats were similarly re-inventing this idea for their own disciples around the same time.
          Both Nietzsche and Yeats believed in the notion of a spiritual aristocracy with “great men, lofty, noble and remote” directing the common minds to worthy goals. Both end up deluded and sexually frustrated in their old age, one dying mad, the other, self satisfied, bitter and lonely.
          And moral of the story is best said by Yeats:-
          “The intellect of man is forced to choose
          Perfection of the life, or of the work
          And if it take the second must refuse
          A heavenly mansion, raging in the dark.”

        2. As an aesthetic / guide to conduct it seems almost like a kind of (aristocratic rather than universal) categorical imperative: act always as though you would live this day for ever more without end. A kind of fearsome self-love to oppose to the “slave-morality” of loving one’s neighbour. It was always an unbalanced idea though, especially if taken too seriously.
          But of course the world may indeed be cyclical (even if he wasn’t asserting any such thing) and many cultures have seen it as such: the Ouroboros remains a common symbol in religion and esotericism even to this day

        3. Interesting. I think he got the eternal occurrence idea wrong. If he’d said like Dostoevsky after his reprieve from the firing squad on the 22 December 1849 “to live each moment in every day as if it’s your last” well then that would something quite invigorating. However, to postulate that you’ll come back endlessly to the same recurring day in an infinite universe, doing the same things, is metaphysical gobbledygook that literally makes no sense in an empirical or ontological manner.

        4. I would trust Dostoevsky over Nietzsche, or pretty much any other thinker / writer. Nietzsche’s idea – original or otherwise – is a profound and somewhat terrifying one though. If its an affirmation of life I’m not entirely sure its the affirmation of human life. But then that was the point I guess.

      2. “The only “truth” that is (and note I use parenthesis) will be the one that’s based on the subjective and erroneous concept of gender, and, this is a crucial distinction to make, and one that’s conveniently ignored by many post modern academics. This is not the same concept.”
        It goes back to the same old question: is everything relative except for the opinion of the relativist?

      3. So a couple of things. We need to separate out discussing Nietzsche from discussing what, say, you or I think. Obviously, there will be points of agreement here and there blah blah blah.
        So while I don’t particularly object to much of what you are saying…if anything…I think for Nietzsche the concept of the chameleon can’t be overstated. The problem with Nietzsche is that no one ever takes him at his word. They turn him into pithy sound bites and overstated hyperbole. I, for one, am totally ready to accept that Nietzsche meant exactly what he said but what he was saying was not able to be put into the medium of the day the way that Kant or Spinoza could explain because he wasn’t a system philosopher. This lead to stuff like Zarathustra and aphrostic writing to follow Heraclitus.
        So I would say no, there is no hyperbole, typical or not, and when we take Nietzsche at his word we start to see that for better or for worse he really did have his pulse on what the 20th century was about to give birth to.
        The problem with Nietzsche is that it is hard to say what he “means” because without truth we are left in a bit of a torrent of different interpretations each as valid as the next. I would say that this is, in fact, the point and not a failure on the part of Nietzsche. It is not a question of subjective or objective truths, it is neither. There simply isn’t a truth. If there was a discussion it would go along the lines, I believe, of Kant’s third critique where he talks about the subjective-universality of beauty but even that is only a precursor to just how hard Nietzsche struck this hammer.
        As for empirical truths and language, you are, of course, correct that it is an agreed truth but, for Nietzsche, that agreed truth is less sensus communis and more akin to a hobbsean leviathan. That truth has been imposed upon the world through will.
        This is why there is a perfect one on one analogy between Christ and Bin Laden and 9-11 and the crucifixion. Early Christians, like Islamic terrorists, are essentially impotent in the fact of a mighty force yet still wish to exert their will on others so they basically change the very meaning of morality. Don’t you dare say that you can’t sharia law up this mother fucker…that would be wrong. As Nietzsche might say, these impotent wierdos are teaching falcons to act with the moral imperative of sheep when rather than moral paradigm, sheep should be their prey.
        Nietzsche has the distinction, I feel, of being both the easiest and most complicated philosopher at the same time. This is why his philosophy itself is like every fluxing and ek-static fire. You pick it up to slam women with his misogyny and burn yourself realizing that he paved the way for them to deny that objective truth exists and so their gender roles are now fluid. They pick it up to justify themselves as horrid dykes and it turns out that while they get to have fluid general roles in fact the ideal situation is for a bunch of roman centurions to keep them in place–a place ordained by strength and will (something women only have when men surrender theirs to them).
        The original point of my comment was simply that the article, while interesting and valid, shows a fundamental problem with most people who play with Nietzsche thought — they only account for the stuff that they like.
        In response to your idea that Nietzsche reads well along the surface, but, ultimately doesn’t hold up to critical appraisal I think here you are dead wrong. I would say it is the opposite….it reads trite on the surface but at it’s core is absolutely immune from critical appraisal. It has literally smashed the binary of right and wrong, good and bad, yes and no to bits and pieces. Nietzsche can ONLY be criticized from the standpoint of a world that makes sense.
        Any valid criticism of Nietzsche, in turn, is just reproving his larger point that through force of will some kind of mold can be pasted across the void and imposed. Really accepting, even as a thought experiment, a Nietzschean world view involves a letting go that most people, especially men, simply are incapable of doing. This isn’t a flaw. Letting go of any concept of truth in the universe is difficult because men are rational beings.
        Women, on the other hand love this (why it is dangerous using Nietzsche against women). In the end there is a parity between women and truth and the universe in the Nietzsche world view. Women, like truth and, essentially, like everything, are a complete void. They are nothing. The require molding (as the article astutely points out). Women are, for the most part, men without souls the same way that truth is just a fluid and useless concept or an actor is really an empty person until he is imbued with a character from a script at which point he will become that character.
        The only thing that can mold the emptiness that is reality or truth is will….the will of men. But men have given up that will and instead of molding women have pedestalized them….they stare into women looking for some kind of reality…but there is none there.
        Women are just empty. They are soulless men. They are, definitionally, monsters with nothing inside them but endless nothing–just void, just abyss. An Nietzsche warns us about this when he says “battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” If that is not a quote that defines the 21st century so far I don’t know what is. Men took the mold away from women and made them monsters, pretended they were men…and then looked to them for guidance or battled against them…neither of those are effective strategies and this is why, as others here have commented, when going to a woman one needs to bring his whip.

        1. Dude.. Please start writing articles… Or create a red-pill philosophy course online…
          Had no idea you’ve read and interpreted philosophical writings in such depth.
          Keirkegaard, Nietzche, Spinoza, Dennett are some of my favourites. I would love to read more stuff from you.
          And I agree… One can take Nietzche’s writings and core message literally. It is usually obvious when he is intentionally being facetious.

        2. Thank you. Yes, I was, prior to going corporate, a philosophy professor. I have a specific love of Kierkegaard though my concentration was history of philosophy in general.

        3. His understanding of the master/slave dynamic can also be used to explain why men got themselves in a mess by giving in to feminism

        4. I agree with your assessment that those who seek out Nietzsche in the vain hoping of trying to appropriate selective quotes and maxims so as to support their belief will often be disappointed as his writings in their completeness have often the uncanny habit of undermining your own position. However, I would contend, and, he would likewise agree on this point, that his philosophy never claims to be objective, systematic and rigorous even in the way that later 20th century philosophers like Wittgenstein and Quine are.
          This is why I think paradoxically that his philosophy has a much wider appeal than most, because it makes claims, often through the use of metaphor and parables that cannot be verified. Likewise his “truths” which can be prescient and insightful make no appeal to being verifiable, that’s not his game, and he arranges his concepts often to proclaim a certain truth, which although powerful in its effect, it’s not necessarily so in terms of its veracity outside of this particular usage. I think, this is a very important consideration to bear in mind with him and really it’s the crux and nexus of so much later 20th century thought (especially French and American) and this is where relative truths have become substituted into the status of immutable objective truths in the body politic of society.
          You can witness this in so many 20th century movements like feminism and the gay marriage movement which took a relative subjective truth and made it into an “absolute truth” in the body politic that become equivalent to the original truth that heterosexual marriage contained for example. But, perhaps, Nietzsche would wryly state that this would be the natural outcome of progress, including equality which was a concept he deeply despised. He was I think very much aware of this irony that wove its tangled web throughout his writings, and, that’s perhaps his greatest contribution to our post modern sensibilities. Namely, those monsters we set out to vanquish have an uncanny habit of undermining us through irony and the vicissitudes of subjectivity, collective opinion, and mediocrity of spirit, especially the later when it comes to females.
          Although, I’m not sure if he ever articulated the concept of the void- I think the idea of moral relativism captures this sense quite succinctly. Women as you note thrive particularly well in this vacuum as in essence they’ve no independent belief in ideas outside of their own totally embodied existence. I can’t agree with the letting go of the frame of reference if you’re a man- as I think this is impossible to accomplish without negating your very masculinity in the process.
          So, it appears on mature reflection, that perhaps I was a little hasty in paraphrasing his entire philosophy in my last post, even though there’s fundamental ideas of his that I wouldn’t agree on.

        5. Great comment. Not sure I would call you hasty as much as optimistic which really is something we need more of. I tend not to be so optimistic so it is a great counterpoint

        6. Just by the by I do have a website which I am still in the process of fleshing out. I plan on it being a mixed bag. Currently it is just my collection of sleeping homeless people and some other stuff but keep an eye on it…ya never know http://www.lulzsalad.com

        7. Interesting and well said.
          I think it’s worthwhile to separate reality into, at least two sections, that are accessible to most people.
          There is hard reality of existence greater than Earth, which we are presently powerless to change. One may include literal natural laws here.
          Then there is the softer reality, which is shaped by competitive forces and the decisions of actors within the hard reality constraints.
          Evolution is the latter process. In many species, the female’s evolutionary desire has won. The ant queen is a Goddess amongst men. Males, individually mindless, worthless and powerless, are her slave. Ants are capable of amazing organisation, but because it is the male which is, by his nature, the innovator, ants are a technologically static, if successful, species.
          Humans are the opposite. Males won the evolutionary race and made women into our slaves. And so we are the opposite to ants – our organisation is based around competitiveness and freedom, rather than the kind of mindless efficiency that safety of the female requires. I would even go so far as saying that, in the natural environment, men care about women only as reproducers. I wonder if love (and certainly chivalry) is for weak men who “need” a woman. I have found that in my own life, the more I have loved my women, the weaker I have become. It would seem better to leave Goddess worship (what else is giving one’s heart to an empty reflection) to the Ants.
          My point in contrasting these two evolutionary outcomes is to highlight that Will is, at least partially, a determining factor in the ensuing reality. It took many generations of men discarding unsuitable women – and this required men to overpower women in the struggle for resources, to be strong and intelligent enough to be able to do so. I don’t doubt there was a primitive ‘conspiracy’ to achieve this. Men do it all the time – it has become so ingrained in us that it is biologically who we are. Men who desire to “help” women beyond their self interest are biologically substandard – poorly developed and hormonally imbalanced. The reason women are attracted to asset strippers, rapists and psychopaths is that the top 25% of men who mated with the 98% of women throughout history – our Paternal ancestors – bred it into women. The feminist perspective, of the Patriarchal conspiracy, is essentially correct. It is only contextually terrible because Christian morality -and it’s atheistic descendants – are cuck’s morality.
          I am sure there are various biological counter examples but I think regardless of those that these two are illustrative. The Will To Power has a timeless meaning beyond just human social relations. This is an idea that, in my opinion, is necessary to grasp before a thoughtful understanding of reality is possible.

      4. You realize that ‘hard sciences’ and empiricism are philosophical beliefs in itself and they shouldn’t be taken for granted, right?
        Science was created by philosophers and constantly changes depending on the philosophy of science behind it, romanticist scientists and logical positivists are very different for example. As for objective, nothing is objective as far as we are concerned for we cannot prove anything to be separate from our own mind, even if that is true.
        There is a difference between believing the sky is blue, which you don’t have to be a scientist to know (though some say it’s a filtration of light and not REALLY blue because when you see it as blue your senses are deceiving you but when you analyze it with scientific tools then your senses are no longer deceiving you because modern scientists and their ass-kissers are philosophically-illiterate retards) and believing in black-holes, which are built on unproven postulates after postulates
        Also, Nietzsche’s perspectivism is quite different from relativism, in perspectivism there isn’t a lack of truth but many truths about one thing, and not all perspectives are necessarily equal.

        1. “You realize that ‘hard sciences’ and empiricism are philosophical beliefs in itself and they shouldn’t be taken for granted, right?” Well, I disagree. Science is not a belief system. It’s based on evidence, experimentation and facts that can be verified, not beliefs. Hard science in contradistinction to pseudo science cannot give us the answers to any ethical issues in life. This is not its remit.
          “and believing in black-holes, which are built on unproven postulates after postulates” This is an issue to with grammar and linguistics rather than analytical science. The belief you mention is completely different to a religious person’s belief. Scientists often use the verb “believe” when what they mean is- something that’s based on their calculations and theories, for example believing there is a black hole in the center of our galaxy. This belief is informed by the process of consensus in the scientific community and it’s meant grammatically in a wholly different “sense” to other types of beliefs people may have.
          “Also, Nietzsche’s perspectivism is quite different from relativism, in perspectivism there isn’t a lack of truth but many truths about one thing, and not all perspectives are necessarily equal” But, I would contend that perspectivism is the causative agent to much modern relativism as it’s not based on the concept of an inalienable truth, but, rather upon the idea of truth as something that’s perceived and subjective, which I disagree with.

        2. “Science is not a belief system. It’s based on evidence, experimentation and facts that can be verified, not beliefs”
          The belief that you have to find things out through experiments or that you know facts through it is still that, a belief. The data you get from science is interpreted, it’s not objective in any way, it completely depends on how a scientists interprets it. A romanticist would interpret it very differently than a logical positivist.
          ” rather upon the idea of truth as something that’s perceived and subjective, which I disagree with.”
          The fact that not all perspectives are equal in perspectivism means that one is closer to truth than another, although of course that truth would be much more complex than ‘muh scientific consensus’ which is just a special form of Argumentum ad populum, I honestly don’t give a shit what scientists believe in, my greatest authority is my own mind, if I happen to agree with them in certain topics, which I do, it’s not because I sheepishly believe in science.

        3. Also truth is perceived and subjective, you say it’s not, yet here you are, you saying it, and everything that we think is true or false is perceived by the human mind and is not independent of it, or we can’t prove otherwise even if it is, so you can disagree with it, but know there’s a reason philosophers don’t care about objectivity ever since Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ and Existentialism. Scientists that make their non-philosophical opinions known come of to me as extreme simpletons because they’re still stuck in ridiculous Enlightenment philosophy that has been ass-raped many times already.

        4. “Also truth is perceived and subjective, you say it’s not, yet here you are, you saying it” No, I didn’t. I distinguished between the truth and the perceived truth that’s commonly substituted for the real thing by post modern theorists.
          ” and everything that we think is true or false is perceived by the human mind and is not independent of it”In mathematics the whole time it’s used as a working hypothesis that mathematical values are independent of the human mind. They are not mere inventions or fictions of our minds, as mathematical values and symmetries are a deep and abiding part of the reality of the universe, regardless of the human mind. Why the human mind is privy to such “useless knowledge” is indeed an enduring mystery from any pragmatic or evolutionary perspective.
          ” Scientists that make their non-philosophical opinions known come of to me as extreme simpletons because they’re still stuck in ridiculous Enlightenment philosophy that has been ass-raped many times already” Well Scientists are not Philosophers and we shouldn’t expect them to be so. I won’t be too prerogative about the Enlightenment, it gave us the internet after all!

        5. ” I distinguished between the truth and the perceived truth that’s commonly substituted for the real thing by post modern theorists.”
          Yet who knows what ‘the truth’ is when all truth as far as we are concerned is perceived by us and we cannot know of any other truth?
          “it’s used as a working hypothesis that mathematical values are independent of the human mind.”
          Oh, a working hypothesis. Much shits given.
          “They are not mere inventions or fictions of our minds, as mathematical values and symmetries are a deep and abiding part of the reality of the universe, regardless of the human mind.”
          Says a human mind which cannot separate itself from itself. There’s absolutely no reason why we should believe math exists outside of people yet of course I wouldn’t exclude the opposite, I just wouldn’t ever take it for granted.
          “Well Scientists are not Philosophers and we shouldn’t expect them to be so”
          They stick their foolish noses in philosophy all the time making stupid as fuck philosophical statements, the most ironic of them all: Philosophy is useless.
          “Enlightenment, it gave us the internet after all!”
          I’d rather it had not. I’d waste my time on more valuable things. It didn’t though, the Internet came much later than the Enlightenment, it would have been invented if it never happened sooner or later too.

        6. I’m a chemical engineering undergraduate. I know why you would dislike Nietzschean philosophy for making it a matter of perceiving, but the reason he made that was because philosophers before him insisted that the world we live in is an illusion and the truth lies in an unseen world and our senses deceive us, it’s not a case of “my truth is different from your truth”, just because those retarded leftists want to corrupt his philosophy to fit theirs just like transhumanists do is not his fault.
          “Hear me! For I am such and such a person. Above all, do not mistake me for someone else!” – Nietzsche

        7. Well, I’d still maintain that the earlier philosophers who maintained that the world is an illusion may up being correct, and that the truth of a preposition or axiom , especially in mathematics is largely deducible to entities that are not part of the perceived, sensuous world we all love and know.

        8. Mathematics can go into worlds that are imaginary and in which anything could happen or be taken as an axiom, which is not the same with the real world, that’s why theories based on mathematical axioms that have never been proven experimentally are regarded as a bad science by non-conformist physicists, such as my Physics professor. Hell even my Math professor said the same thing.
          There’s no reason to believe in some world of ideas like Plato’s while ignoring our world, not only is there no evidence of it, regarding this world as a mere illusion and not true is very life-denying. We can never say for sure there isn’t a metaphysical world beyond this, but even if there is one, there’s no reason to believe this world being real and the other one are exclusive.

        9. ” on mathematical axioms that have never been proven experimentally are regarded as a bad science by non-conformist physicists” Einstein’s theories were proven correct long before experimental results were able to prove this based on hard evidence. The point with mathematics is that you’re talking about relationships and qualities that are the blueprint of reality, we know for example that the number 2 doesn’t exist anywhere in our world, in fact it only have a sense in our world when we apply it to objects of some description. So the number 2 describes relationships and objects in our world even if in itself as an entity exists merely in a casually inert state apart from world. Mathematical qualities are not imaginary fictions of the human mind as they existed long before we arrived on the scene, and presumably long after we will depart. Our minds have access to parts of this realm, but, it’s untrue to say by using this unique knowledge we ignore and deny life in this world. That’s simply not correct as everything in life is describable in this most fundamental of all ways. I don’t have any problem with them inhabiting a metaphysical world that intersects our world at critical junctions.

        10. Einstein’s theory has never been proven because it exists on unproven axioms to begin with.
          ” Mathematical qualities are not imaginary fictions of the human mind as they existed long before we arrived on the scene, and presumably long after we will depart”
          And how do you know that? You talk as if that’s a fact, but you could never ever prove such a thing as all reality you and everyone else experiences is up to the human mind. The safest bet so far is that we made math up. The argument for math being imaginary fictions of the human mind is that there are things in math that do not exist in the real world. You keep stating things based on complete faith and no evidence at all, and that is fine, but don’t act like those who disagree with you are denying the absolute truth or something.
          You can describe everything any way you want to, with many different explanations that may or may not contradict each other. It doesn’t mean that any of them is correct or incorrect. They are interpretations that are created by the human mind. Nietzsche would say that the more of those interpretations you know about a thing the more you know that thing.
          You should go read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason or some existentialism, I see you’re not well read in philosophy, every view you state that you take for granted is a weak argument that has been disparaged many times already.

        11. The evidence is abundant on this point. I not going to boringly go through it. Everything from the background cosmic radiation, red shift, the practical applications of gravitational lensing techniques used in the observatories in Chile confirm the findings on his two pivotal theories in this area, along with recent confirmation through the CERN project.
          But, surely as an Engineer you must understand the concept whereby the prove of mathematical qualities is the evidence you see before you when you introduce a new mixing unit in a plant that allows more accurate predictions to made in the production process. surely this is evidence that proves the existence of mathematical relationships in the real word everyday? What more prove do you need?

        12. My Physics professor made a book debunking Einstein’s TSR. His arguments are good enough to me.
          And although I’m in an Engineering field I’m well read in philosophy and cannot possibly fall to scientism after reading Nietzsche, like I said before, everything you say has already been disparaged many times before, read more existentialist books, if you do that and come look at these comments again you’d realize what an ignorant simpleton you were being, I was like you once, I’m not saying to become a relativist and neither was I ever one, but scientific fundamentalism and a blind faith in reason and ‘truth’ are just as bad, you should read the Critique of Pure Reason too.

    2. I have to disagree that “women can decide that they don’t need men”. This is just their outward expectation, mostly because they can’t get a good man anyways so they then declare that they don’t need men. However, they cannot bend a law of nature, and this is where cognitive dissonance becomes the main trait of feminism.

      1. 100% correct which is, in essence, why masculine game is so successful. What they can do, however, is pretend to such an extent that it literally changes the world….

      2. Of course they can make that decision. This doesn’t mean it isn’t cognitively dissonant or that they won’t jump on the first alpha cock which gives them the tingles (and then, often, the second and third in a single night. The point is, for Nietzsche, that there simply is no truth in society, morals, ethics, etc. other than the truth that will creates.

        1. His point about “truth” only goes so far as there are no challenges. His ridicule of the Christianity worked only so far as another religion (Islam) was in no position to threaten the survival of Christendom.
          A society with no religion will ultimately be conquered by a society that has a strong religion.

        2. You may be right…however, I think there is more fluidity to “religion” than you give it credit for. For what it’s worth, I think the Masonic creed sums it up nicely. Belief in a higher power. That higher power is open to interpretation. The united states is a fiercely religious country if we understand that consumerism is the higher power to which is prays.

    3. Excellent thoughts here.
      I would say concerning the dangers of Nietzchian philosophy re: feminism that women can only decide to be men because men have created a society where they literally don’t need us. My last serious LTR was a career woman who I’d be surprised if she ever dates a guy for more than 6 months the rest of her life. She has zero need for a man, and meets all her needs and gets lots of mindless entertainment in the big city career girl life that she has sitting in her cubicle in her high rise building dreaming about the skinny margarita she is going to have with her silly friends after work.
      Likewise, Bruce Jenner can only decide to become a woman because men have created a society where that is seen as entertaining and cool and fun. Didn’t RuPaul do the same thing? No one gave a shit. Do you think Russian Cossacks would allow people to honor and worship Kardashian types the way we do here? No. They ride in and whip the Pussy Riot girls and make them cry. Here we call them brave and stunning.
      It is the men that have created the society we have, and failed to create the institutions, ie the church, the government, the schools, the entertainment, etc. that reinforce good values and shun bad ones.

    4. The point Nietzsche was making is not that there is no truth but that so many people sell and buy comfortable lies and fantasies that you must have a warrior’s heart to question assumptions and become an outsider. That was why he like the Jews and despite the Germans because many of the Jews do bring an outsider’s perception in contrast to the Germans’ stiffening Pietist attitude which was all the rage then in his day. For me, the key figure is Oedipus Rex. Many people completely misunderstood the theme of the play and the myth it’s based on. It was never about the fate or that the Gods were somehow cruel. Nope was it about a incesteous desire. Oedipus by all accounts was a good and wise and brave king. He wasn’t evil. He exiled himself so he could avoid killing his father and marry his mother after hearing from Apollo. His intentions were benign. His flaw was that he confused his assumptions with the truth. He assumed that he know who were his parents. What if he asked Apollo “Who are my father and mother?” His failure to question started him onto a wrong path.
      That is a major flaw in the idea of having a strong government or in having socialism or theoracy. Too many people assumed that if only we can pick one good man who is expert, brave and wise, then all our problems will be solved. But Oedipus was as good a king as anyone can be and he still screw up. The Greeks were saying what Nietzsche saying in the Fifth century.
      One side note: Oedipus was buried in Athens as a hero and given the hero worship. That sounds odd to the modern ear, but his life and suffering were a valuable lesson in the danger of assuming omniscience and his virtue in accepting his own punishment made him prasieworthy.

    5. Yeah since metaphysically Truth is impossible due to change you must forget the pursuing of abstract things like Heaven science or philosophy, and life is nothing but a changing hole of nihilism. And all who said otherwise is trying to fool you into his non earthly world in order to get you loosing your pleasure for nothing.
      According to N people who seek the Truth are inflexible, unadaptable, and creepy old mummies.
      I’ve always hated that.
      That is what socialist use to destroy us: race doesn’t exist, patriarchy is a social construct, years of evolution doesn’t mean that you have a well defined path to thrive (aka homosexuality, ethnical suicide, socialism, feminism…).
      Here is man called Tom Arrow that thinks their life serving the purpose of life and evolution is worthless.
      The whole thing is to convince men that they haven’t a greater thing to fight for, since change will destroy it, but a immediate pleasure that satisfy.
      God, Philosophy, Science, Nation all worthless.
      According to Nietzsche metaphysical analysis(worth to read) the obsession of White Men with seek the Truth and concepts started with Plato.
      Men seeking the Truth is important, is the root of science and our power over nature, is what makes us different from women and animals, is what makes ethics and of rule a general rule (waste to N. sure). Women “think” general patterns that control the nature don’t exist.
      The metaphysics of N is the opposite side of what western men have had in mind since millennia. And he knew it, and I hate he, for his openly apology of lie and nothingness

      1. This is the other end of fire. See, I had said that one should be careful when playing with Nietzsche because his sword cuts both ways, but one also ought not, in my opinion, avoid him.
        Nietzsche doesn’t feel that people seeking truth are inflexible mummies. He feels that people who are just following a given truth are. People like Galileo, Goethe or Ceaser embody the Nietzschean ideal.
        The musician most often associated with Nietzsche is Shcoenberg and his 12 tone atonal music. He was a master at the basics but he pushed the boundaries further. Ought we not push boundaries whenever possible? I am not saying we should allow for Princess Jenner…but shouldn’t we make room for taking the old world, turning it on it’s head and forging forward? The problem with the last couple of generations is not that it moved for far and too fast, but moved without guidance and masculine strength.
        I would advise not dismissing Nietzsche quite so quickly. There is a masterful understanding of the world. Of course he peeled back the curtain a little bit and seeing the realities behind these truths…but that doesn’t change them…it only allows further understanding.
        Remember, Nietzsche isn’t anti evolution. His entire life’s work was an ode to the next evolution of man kind.

        1. Your comment is mostly right except for the last part, I don’t think Nietzsche’s Overman was some sort of a biological new form of evolution like those lame sci-fi cultists believe.
          For example Nietzsche said it’s better to look for the Overman at a Cesare Borgia than a Parsifal, both equally human, with Cesare Borgia working his way to power instead.

        2. I didn’t meant to suggest an evolutionary overman. I agree with you…..However, I would suggest that it is a total evolution….culturally, spiritually, mentally and, in turn, physically. JUst like modern devolution (underman?) has turned promising young boys into crying she wusses through culture, etc. etc. etc. so will a positive evolution yield some new physical characteristics.

        3. I don’t think they’ll be new, I think there have already been realistic bodies in the past worthy of an Overman mind, those Greek God statues were based on something.
          You’re right about the Underman, though Nietzsche used the term ‘Last Man’ in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Democracy is the heir of Christianity (Not to be confused with the Old Testament) and will lead to the Last Man which we could call Underman, according to Nietzsche, and so far he’s been right.
          Take a look at Transhumanists, they think they are Ubermensch but I can’t imagine more of an opposite of Nietzsche’s Overman than them.
          Of course, these dipshits aren’t very common, but we have all sorts of socialists and idiots who will ruin their country to accept “refugees” (who for some reason are all wifeless and children-less), even Modern Academia is pussified as fuck, no, they’re probably the most pussified of all, they push all sorts of delusional humanist beliefs such as there being no race differences or even no races at all!

        4. last man…ahhh you are 100% right, I didn’t remember. Yes, new might (hopefully) mean a return to old…again, quite Nietzschean. The problem people have with using Nietzsche is that too many people (all too many?) use him to pin down a point which is contrary to the whole project and will, simultaneously, work perfectly (on surface) and fail miraculously (just beneath).
          For N there is simply no difference between the lightening that exists and the lightning perceived and as such when someone makes an argument for a static point which requires grounding in truth and they use Nietzsche as firepower there is always a trouble.
          Hipsters really are the last man huh.

        5. I said evolution on socialist, not Nietzsche. He is pro evolution, due to hedonistic motives.

  4. Imagine women as the sparkling water in a vase sculpted by man. We place flowers inside this vase of water because we as men know the water allows flowers to flourish by absorb water’s nutrients . We have poured women out of the containers we have placed them in, with the flowers descending as well. When one pours out a glass of water, a chaotic event occurs: women freely crash downward, pulled, limited, and imposed upon by the natural laws that bind them. Any children, Sage or Lily, fall along with them. Puddles of water form on the ground to dry up, less men to slip on them and lower themselves to the lowest level of women. Some men may drown in what was once beautiful and life giving. Men must take caution where they tread.
    Book Two of The Gay Science, the source of your quotation, deals with the theme of our love of reality, a reality that we interpret as truth, “you call yourselves realists and hint that the world really is the way it appears to you. As if reality stood unveiled before you only, and you yourselves were perhaps the best part of it”. (s.57). He declares that there is no reality for us, only our artists interpretation of the world. Our passions and limited perception of truth allows us to create an image of the world as how we want it to be. We, as men, have been the creators of what we find beautiful in the world. Women, like water, will take the shape of whatever we put them in, as man is the creator of woman, and we have shaped woman in order to satisfy our lust for beauty, to love our creation as a signal of all that is beautiful in the world. Somewhere along the way, we relinquished our power as the creator of woman, to woman herself.

  5. Sometimes, Nietzsche says not what he thinks, but what he doesn’t think, so that his readers can come to reject the notions themselves.
    For some true insights on women and Jewishness (and the parallel between the two) see Otto Weininger. He separated the womankind “typologically” into the Mother and the Prostitute. Both type, he said, were equally sexual but in different ways: the maternal type desired sex out of reproductive urge, whereas the Prostiturte craved the pleasure of coitus alone.
    But even Nietsche was sometimes on the money as shown in this statement:
    “When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexually. Sterility itself disposes one toward a certain masculinity of taste; for man is, if I may so, ‘the sterile animal’”.
    I would add that being overly sexual and having many sexual intercourses disposes one towards the feminine and homosexuality. PUAs are leaning towards homosexuality without realizing it.
    For feminist interpretations of Nietzsche, see “Nietzsche and the Woman Question” by Carol Diethe.
    p.s. … and Rooshy, thank you for banning me again for nothing!

    1. I was amazed on the rooshv forum how many times you would see someone who had say 500 posts or more then they got banned. So 500 insights then you could no longer tolerate what they had to say?

      1. Moderation here is quite paranoid and the banning is in fact useless as one can easily hack it. They’ve lost a lot of valuable contributors because of it but it’s their lost in the end of the day.
        I don’t post a lot but sometime I have the urge and it’s annoying to click submit and find out you’ve been banned.

        1. What did you do? None have been as offensive as I since I strive to enlighten those with a truth so bright their tits start to shine. How I envy you for your accomplishment.

    2. “I would add that being overly sexual and having many sexual intercourses disposes one towards the feminine and homosexuality”.
      Care to explain this? I’ve noticed this too in some men who are players.

        1. I don’t understand. How can a society where everybody can fuck easily (i meant : girls more easier to bed) can make men leaning towards homosexuality ?

        2. I suppose if one imagines a Disney world of sex, the entire society would just lay in bed all the time screwing and everything else would collapse.

        3. See Bonobo’s our closest cousins and how the relations between the sexes work in comparison with chimpanzees.
          Which males in which groups are more masculine?

        4. Is this the particular meme of information that has recently sparked so much discussion?
          It is very american in its dramaticism.

        5. Ah I see thanks. Comparing current society to the self gratification and clique culture of bonobos seems very valid.
          I saw them more as 60s hippies but I suppose that is also where feminism was born.
          I thought it was just a case of peaceful competition between males through stamina and gonad size, and a society where the community raises the young together, but it highlights well how humans are arriving at the same situation through unpleasant means, as well as how idealistic I can still be.
          I also assume the bonobo males wouldnt let using sex as currency become default unless it suited them, but then they are only daft apes, not a human society.
          Sadly it seems the youth today are little more than irresponsible autopleasuring little monkeys without a goal. Now I understand it is because noone told them how to be themselves and it is not their fault because their manliness was taken away from them Im sorry to say I have no sympathy.
          … you boys need to just make your own minds up about being manly, at every stage of growing up there is a ‘why did no-one tell me or make it easy for me’ The reasons vary as times change, the solution is always through being calm steady and assertive in carrying out a plan and not getting involved in drama. That is being a man.
          Thanks for your patience in my going offtopic and filling in the gaps for me. I guess it brings us back to Nietzsche… Identifying blame is useful only to effect a solution. A high functioning man gets on with the solution. He has a will to power that is greater than sex, so he can not be controlled by its availbility, yes?
          Sadly again, I thought we already knew that feminism was created by those in power to keep the common man down and fighting amongst themselves over meagre amounts of power… same for religion and AA teaching one to give himself over to an abstract higher power outside of himself. All traps for fools.

      1. The players’ game is built around woman’s needs as the ultimate goal is for her to drop her defenses. The seducer takes the shape of the seduced to create a sense of trust and familiarity.
        Spending time with women is very detrimental to men as a whole but during intercourse you absorb her yin juices through the capillaries of your penis. Paradoxically, celibacy has the same effect, one starts to lean towards homosexuality. As in everything, moderation is the key. A healthy monogamous relationship is the best.

        1. ” but during intercourse you absorb her yin juices through the capillaries of your penis. ”
          You’re joking, right?

        2. That’s interesting. When I have perused some other PUA websites, the ones where they are ONLY talking about travelling and meeting women (one guy focused on his camera specifically), and the guys just strike me as not someone I’d want to emulate. I couldn’t put my finger on it until now but I’d say yeah, he’s clearly spending too much time with women.
          There are still things to be learned from such a person, but he comes off a little too Mystery-esque to me. I remember seeing Mystery on tv years ago and he had painted fingernails, jewelry, and designer clothes and I’m thinking.. does this work because he’s competing with the women or attracting them?

        3. I have seen players exhibit this taking on the form of the woman by mirroring her to create comfort. It is manipulative and subversive but works for some. The originators of game like Mystery are guys I would laugh at and bully not out of jealousy for them slaying mad pussy (as they are aught to claim) but them for being so ‘gay-like’ and feminine.
          The question is is this the only path a player must take in order to reach his goal of becoming a pussy slayer? I say not. Charlie Sheen and Rod Stewart are examples of flitty men. But what of men like Wilt Chamberlain and Jack Nicholson – celebrity men who have laid more women than chickens lay eggs and still look and act like real men? And PUA gurus like Dimitri the Lover and that GLL dude?
          Spending time with women does not make a man into a woman. It is the man who makes himself unto a woman through his choices and failings.

      2. Example – Charlie Sheen.
        Another – Rod Stewart.
        These are famous pussy slayers who wound up light in the loafers. Perhaps too much accent on banging strange made one so.

  6. He was a homosexual fascist and had a huge influence on Nazism. I don’t know if he’s the best person to take advice from.

    1. I don’t care for this article but you have an ANIME avatar and that makes it very hard for me to take you seriously. A grown ass man who’s public about Japanese cartoons is beyond me.

      1. Well, it is one art form of many. Whether the content is good is up to the artist. There is definitely a lot of crap out there. A problem of anime movies and especially series is often that the male characters are so incredibly weak that it makes you want to cry.
        I think I liked the anime movie ‘Perfect Blue’. But I have not seen it for a long while – actually before my ‘red pill’ days.

  7. I don’t know, every milquetoast, granola eating, left wing idiot I know is very much into Nietzsche.

      1. He wanted to prove that he could literally stop traffic just for her. As I stated above, he went as far as she wanted. Even if she didn’t expect it, she wanted to be blown away. So will he, if they get married. Good luck with that.

        1. Without even clicking on the story to see what the douchebags look like, I can guarantee you she has a smile from ear to ear while she tells all her slutty little friends about how thousands of people driving places had to stop all because of HER and that was her moment.

        2. He gets convicted, goes to jail. She gets lonely and fucks her ex boyfriend(s). Gets pregnant. Doesn’t tell fiancée and marries him.
          They guy thinks he’s the luckiest guy ever.

    1. Texans drive like madmen in the morning traffic…this guy probably caused 3 wrecks.
      This is a big problem with millennials. They have this one up mentality where ever bday, marraige proposal, family gathering has to be more grand than the last event on their facebook news feed. And if it inconveniences everyone else in the process, its even better. Anything for pictures.

      1. Tell me about it. While not as bad as Dallas, Houston traffic is still hell, even if you’re taking a loop. And the sad part is, Texas as a whole is like that. Whether dumb jocks racing, soccer moms texting, Dixie flag clad rednecks almost forcing people off the road. I don’t know if everything else is bigger, raging asshole drivers are bigger in Texas. And then this shit happens. I find viral proposals annoying as it is, but this is just dangerous. And the worst part, she didn’t give a fuck. And they wonder why they get bullied, sometimes literally to death. I wish they fall off a cliff next time they take a selfie.

    2. Haha. Love it. A bit ridiculous gesture for something as meaningless as a marriage proposal, but I love his balls. Fuck those coppers. I mean: What kind of irrational confidence does it take to walk on to a street and annoy hundreds of people in fast heavy cars? Damn.

        1. Normally, I’m wary of road ragers, but in this case there is merit, and I definitely would shoot the beta proposer first.

  8. I’m glad Freddie was born 150 years ago. Appreciate his wisdom.
    If he was born today, he’d be making artisanal moonshine in central Brooklyn.

      1. See, originally, this was made as a warning to women who intended to sleep around and have a sense of self respect and dignity, as in, you want a man to treat you like a slut, then he’ll go ahead and treat you like a slut, and you will be shamed accordingly. An elegant method of the carrot and stick coming from Latin America. Of course feminists have hijacked this to mean, if your woman wants a foot rub with giving nothing in return, you’re going to go that distance. Period.

  9. Don’t you realise that progressivist feminism exists because of Nietzsche? Think about it: without God as the authority, Darwinism very quickly changes from an observational scientific theory to a prescriptive imperative, and the ‘will to power’ as far as psychosexual dynamics is concerned becomes ‘possession of power’ rather than the development of it. In other words, unchained hypergamy is out in the unabashed open because of this guy. Big daddy statism and feminine groupthink politics are the logical phenotypes of the Nietzschian and Darwinian philosophical bloodline. Men will eventually become and remain either breeding Alphas or neutered Beta drones by state decree if mankind stays on this path.
    Future historians may well look back at Nietzsche as the lunatic that began this new dark period of man. Hardly someone to celebrate.

    1. Paul Johnson makes the same denunciation in “The Intellectuals” or “Modern Times” – I forget which, maybe both. While Johnson is a die-hard Catholic, he has a point. I think Nietzsche foresaw the changes rather than instigated them.

    2. Nietzsche explicitly criticized feminism by its name, many people misunderstand Nietzsche and think him as some sort of relativist or who thinks no truth at all exists, that is very wrong.

  10. Pure crap. Take away agency from everyone except white males, and then blame white males for everything. Typical Jew spew.

  11. There are exceptions to every rule. Thus I have to disagree with the statement in the article:
    “When a woman has a strong, masculine father who sets firm boundaries for her, she naturally becomes a feminine nurturer.”
    While it might be true much of the time, it’s not true all the time. I know a woman who clearly chose to rebel against her strong, and traditional parents. Naturally she ended up as a liberal, spinster cat lady.

  12. Thus spoke Zarathrustra to the assembled crowd: there is only one path to becoming an ubermensch: yes, Kratom

  13. The taming of the shrew- a man with enough will and determination can create the woman he wants. No unicorn hunting required.

  14. One of the best articles I’ve ever seen because it echoes some of my beliefs. Men are the problem, not women.
    I’ve never advocated the abuse of women. Instead, I’ve always advocated the severe bitch slapping and public humiliation of any father allowing his daughters to get away with slutty behaviours.

  15. An excellent and much-needed article. I have not delved deep into the thoughts of Nietzsche, but the more I have heard about him lately, the more he resonates. However, consider a couple of points:
    1) Can we please drop the left/right bullshit? If ROK wants to be more than an echochamber for the extreme minority of guys who ‘get it’, have figured out repeatable methods to bang easy women, hate the status quo and corrupt culture, but just want to ‘enjoy the decline’, we have to appeal to more than just those who “hate leftists.” Plus whenever I hear somebody talk about leftists or right wingers, I know I’m talking to someone deeply ignorant about politics and truth.
    If the point of this site is to do more than just high five each other about redpill truths and sit around saying “oh boy was she ever a slut! Great job last night, Stiffler!” then we have to appeal to those who need masculinity but for whom it is strongly lacking in their life. If forced to choose between ‘leftist’ or ‘rightest’ in my blue pill days, I would have chosen the former. Is anyone in that camp going to be interested in an article that reads “why leftists hate Nietzsche”?
    Likewise, consider what Nietzsche himself would do. Did he sit around cursing and criticizing dumb feminists or superstitious religious folk, or name-call other philosophers? Or did he just present his truths for what they are? It’s time to stop the condescension and start presenting cold, hard truths. Consider the fact that there are women and even feminists out there who are receptive to hearing the truth.
    Just the other day I heard a woman state “gosh if I knew then what I know now, I would have foregone my college degree for a gym membership and a cooking class. I no longer even tell men what my occupation is.” What if the title of this article was “some hard truths about women from Nietzsche” instead of the current more hostile version, that sets the stage of the author having some sort of agenda or preconceived notions.
    2) Absolutely 100% spot on that men are completely and totally to blame for the current state of affairs, and this applies to more than just feminism. We need to realize this, before we are no longer holding the reins of power and are completely impotent in affecting change and reverting back to a more patriarchal society.
    Just consider if “the goal is to create better men,” we have to take men who have been lied to and mislead by our government, society, and media, and teach them truths such as this. What’s the best way to get them to listen?

    1. I’ve been thinking about that. I’m an artist and entertainer at heart, and I’m thinking maybe this is where guys like me can use our talents to help the cause. Creating new media (largely fiction) for the masses containing neomasculine philosophy. Basically, a return to the styles of entertainment which were abandoned after the mid ’60s. After all, it’s been said that art imitates life. The reason things got as bad as they are now is because the media made it so. But the media as we know it is dying due to the internet. There will be a vacuum created very soon. This could be our big chance! Anyone with me on this one?

      1. I’ve been thinking on the same lines all of this year. I think it may be a untapped market that is bigger than any of us realize. I’ve started to write a fiction work geared toward the teenage to young adult audience that demonstrates red pill truth without lecturing or being preachy. Show don’t Tell. I think if the truth is presented well enough the young men reading will automatically resonate with it because they would have experienced these things in their own lives but would not know how to express it.

        1. It will take a series of emotional breakthroughs for our young men to realize their true nature after being indoctrinated at such a young age. Take a look at the article posted a few articles ago about the candid interview with a primary teacher. You will see how our young boys are brainwashed into thinking that their natural inclinations are wrong and are systematically forced into suppression through punishment, threat of pain, emotional abuse, humiliation and so on. Think Pavlov.
          Boys grow up mimicking the girls for there is no other way to avoid pain and receive rewards from the big, powerful teachers.

        2. Holy cow. There was a case in our state where a 8 year old kid wanted to dress up like a girl. There was a court battle to let him play on girls teams in school and shit. And the gay community jumped on the cause celebrated him as “transgendered.” It’s totally insane that his parents wouldn’t correct him, and that child protective services didn’t put him in counseling.
          A lot of little boys go through that phase, and it’s part of learning the differences between the sexes. But it’s the parents who teach them, not the schools and courts getting involved and confusing them further.

        3. Problem is the state owns our children, not us. We sign them over when we register their birth to the state.

      2. I’ve been thinking you artists should do this, although I myself don’t perform, write or do any art. But yeah, I can’t think of anything that could more successfully move the masses.

    2. The words left and right still have some import. For example, how many people on the right end of the spectrum are in favour of big welfare states and strong unions?
      In the U.S the terms have become perverted, but in many other parts of the world they have still retained meaning.
      As for F.N, he is actually popular among leftists, which is odd given how incapable they are of acknowledging ressentiment when they see it.

      1. how many people on the right end of the spectrum are in favour of big welfare states and strong unions?

        Most of the Republican party, including the last Republican president, who gave us the largest federal union, the TSA (also one of the biggest government expansions in modern history with the Orwellian “homeland” security).
        To me the only difference is the left taxes and spends, the right borrows and spends. (In my view, given the choice between those two awful endings, the taxing is actually the *more* conservative position.)
        But more importantly, for those whom the words left and right still mean something, one shouldn’t eliminate half the audience immediately by implying this is only an idea either a “rightist” or “leftist” will understand.

        1. They are in favour of strong unions? Really? In most of the world right wing parties take power away from the unions. That is a consistent observation in the western world. I have never come.across a conservative leaning website that promotes unionism. Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places. It’s mostly the socialist websites and papers that promote it–and by socialists i literally mean socialists–and a few centre left leaning parties.
          Taxation is tied in with the constant expansion of the welfare state. You can’t really do that if you are promoting a flat tax rate. Do any major American parties promote the flat tax rate anymore?
          I agree with your last point though.

        2. Yeah, the only difference between the left and the right is the people at the top change names. It’s all about the rich getting whatever they want, no matter who’s in charge.

        3. Correct. Most of the fights / arguments are orchestrated or at least encouraged by the elites so that those of us who are not part of the 0.1% elite do not organize against their interests. That’s the main reason you have black vs white, catholic vs protestant, jew vs muslim, etc. There is not a lot of difference in these groups on a fundamental level (take for example black factory workers vs white ones) but the elites want them hating and fighting each other so they never attack the real problem.

    3. I think you are absolutely right. If we ever want to become truly politically relevant, then we have to be careful embracing terms like “left” or “right”, which has been defined by people other than ourselves, and contain baggage and misconceptions not of our own creation. We should strive to define ourselves or risk being defined by others. When we embrace “left” or “right”, we are letting someone else define us.

    4. I used to admire the left… When it was made of strong and bold men fighting for reduce the 16 hours work day, and not about taking my money and my freedom to serve the matriarchal nonsense.
      A man’s belongs what he produces… The businessman is supposed to be bad by taking part of the worker labor.
      Old communist said. Incompatible with current feminism, divorce and other shit. What a juggernaut bussinesman are women and their socialist!
      Communist fails here the additional work of the worker doesn’t belong to the worker but to state

    5. Agreed. And that’s what the Men’s Movement is supposed to be about. Disconnect yourself from the social conformities that sap your masculinity and squash the REAL YOU. It’s happening in the men’s movement because right now it’s women, as our species partner, that’s part of the problem, and that’s because of the SJW’s and other groups that have vested interests in taking away people’s individuality. Becoming a better person involves recognizing when you’re being manipulated by the people who’re controlling our media, society, etc.
      Another German, Elias Cannetti, describes it very well. He points out that society has a dehumanizing effect on people in general because of power-grabs by certain groups. And womens basic nature falls in with that, and helps to draw men into it rather than help them fulfull thier true nature.
      It’s not about who’s on the political left or right. BOTH sides have a stake in keeping the status quo, which involves ordering humans around like a bunch of sheep.
      And by the way, Nietzche fucked A LOT of women. That’s how he got syphilis.

    1. In real live he had a very bad case of “one-iteous” for Lou Salome and a destructive crush on Richard Wagner’s wife Cosima.
      He caught syphilis in a whorehouse at an early age so I don’t go to Neitzsche for too much advice on women.
      But on this point, albeit a mild overstatement, there is some truth.

  16. Way off base. This reads like a freshman philosophy paper. You’ve already been corrected but I’ll add to the pile.
    Nietzsche is adored by the left. His misogyny is outright ignored or justified as an ironic, rhetorical strategy. So is his fevered elitism. His entire, hidden in plain sight political program, in which the masses of humanity are crushed by servitude and suicide (encouraged by Nietzsche) , while a tiny, artistic, genius warrior class uses every means at its disposal to transcend the human condition in a world without God or transcendent values, is never taken at face value.
    Leftists do not value truth, or consistency, or fair discussion between respected parties. But they know how to appreciate and use a style of argument that gives them considerable power. And they learned this style, in part, from Nietzsche. There is no natural order, and no standard external to life by which we could determine value. There is only power, which is relative to its relations. Truth and argumentation have no support in anything beyond their effects. If saying something causes a transfer of power, then its truth is irrelevant. And none of this is new, it is a replay of the ancient sophist game. Persuasion, force, are at the heart of truth. What is true is what you can convince people to believe. This persuasion that forces truth into the heads of its listeners is actually a learned art, and it spawns a profession. Today there are many versions of this, but university professor is an obvious one.
    Now Nietzsche uses persuasion in a brilliant, subtle way to convince readers that they are on the inside of an elite group which, if it were ever to be formed, would violently exclude them, and thus prepares the great majority of future human souls for unending degradation. But leftists are blinded by their own lust for power, and use Nietzsche’s rhetorical and literary weapons to attack their enemies. They do not see that they are slowly readying humanity for a new era of slavery by destroying its spiritual defenses.

    1. I think modern leftists are more influenced by Foucault who was also influenced by Nietzsche, so the Nietzsche they are exposed to is largely second hand.
      You are correct about the desire for power though, and that’s what fuels the ‘everything-is-ideology’ claims that are so fashionable among the left. They believe they have access to a special form of truth and those who disagree are just pesky ideologues or brainwashed fools who are ruining their grand master plans

      1. That is true, Foucault is the more direct influence on modern leftists. I just wanted to really focus on Nietzsche because of the sophomoric way he is discussed in this article. But as far as analysis of power relations, genealogies of institutions and knowledges, the ramped up paranoid style of thought, yeah Foucault is a little closer to home.

    2. I like your insight, but not your style. You seem to condemn this article as either ‘freshmanish’ or ‘sophomoric’. I would not disregard the possibility that the author could have written a ‘junior’ or ‘senior’ paper given another audience.
      At the same time you use the term leftist rather lightly and more as a lier/deceiver in a quest for power. Given that you are trying to describe what I have seen of the talmudic communists, and also to large extent the international socialists, I agree with you. But Nietzsche was one of the darlings of the NSDAP, and they are hardly considered leftist.
      Given the right extractions from his philosophy I even believe the laizzes-faire capitalist could find something to idolise him with.
      In other words, I think you’re good at describing the contractions in Nietzsche’s disciples today, and the consequence of their actions. But I disagree on your ‘leftist’ stamp.
      But I gave you a thumbs up. You gave me good thoughts to ponder.

      1. Thanks for the feedback. Your point about the leftist stamp is well taken. And I agree with you that the right can certainly use Nietzsche for their own purposes. Would you be willing to elaborate on what you don’t like about the style? I am trying to improve my writing so I really appreciate all comments positive and negative.

        1. Just short.
          You write well. As English is not my native tongue, i had to reread a couple of times to understand it ;-). And you get your ideas over rather well too, and had me really reflecting.
          But cut the sophomore/freshman rhetoric. You sound condemning on a piece that may have been deliberately kept at a mundane level to reach as many as possible.
          Keep up the good work!

  17. For instance, a standard American male’s frame might go something like this: “The world is a scary place. Women want nice guys. Men are perverted assholes. I’m not very special.” Pretty depressing, isn’t it?

    To contrast, a player’s frame might go something like this: “I’m the shit. The world is a playground. Women want confident, assertive men. Most men are fucking pussies, but not me. I’m the shit.”

    These are both a little embarassing. Why does it have to be either one extreme or another?

    1. depends if you want to land in the friendzone, or if you want to keep some dignity while losing the deal anyway.
      Joke apart, it’s good to mix both but keep a good proportion of “i’m the shit…” stuff : Last time i was discussing with a feminist (i know, but i’ve discovered that during the conversation so..) I told her that i didn’t like those stuff and she was asking me why i didn’t care about the fact that women earn less than men. I just answered that i’m only concerned with the wellness of the girls who are with me and it’s enough good to me and, for the others, i don’t give a shit. then I left.
      it’s a bit of both but still in the “im the shit…” pattern.

      1. I do not see the connection there. That is simple selfishness. I would likely answer ‘What would I gain from caring?’
        And yet I could do this even if I were a bum.

  18. To contrast, a player’s frame might go something like this: “I’m the shit. The world is a playground. Women want confident, assertive men. Most men are fucking pussies, but not me. I’m the shit.”
    Egocentric, contrived, and a slave to pussy: “women want…”, pathetic.
    Masculinity is a state of balance and control. You act not because you think you are better than others, but because it is natural in you.
    ‘…for man makes for himself the image of woman, and woman shapes herself according to this image.’
    This is interesting, If he said that, he is correct. Human mating:
    – Men define femininity, females adapt to males: They appear to be what men want them to be(pleasure/lure), and men believe what they want women to be(a lie)
    – The man possesses the meaning of beauty and femininity, all in his head, through his masculinity, his libido, his capacity for pleasure, and then projects it on women, and so what Schopenhauer said is correct too: the unaesthetic sex.

  19. Men don’t need religion, yes that is true. Women need it in so that they aren’t left alone to run amok and destroy what we’ve been trying to create. However, instituting religion in a society that propagates the continuing of our species and our natural biological roles is highly correlated to the survival of that society.
    All this technological nonsense is the same drivel, they believe that society does not require such things as patriarchy, religion, traditional gender roles, because the needs are no longer necessary. Women no long feel the need for a strong male protector because big daddy gubment takes care of it for them. Everything has backfired, you Globalist fucks. Your plan will fall,even if you beat all of us, and in the end, you’ll all be turned on by your newly embraced ‘subjects’
    Life finds a way, the unnatural cannot last in this current state because it is being artificially reinforced to even exist in the first place. I am writing about this out of here, but this “unnatural” state is everything around us, everything we’ve been inundated with. Even if these NWO fools take over the entire human earth, they are still insignificant specks in the grand scheme of the cosmos, human mortals pretending they are Gods with their contrived technology and dark dealings. Pathetic that it took such cowardice and faggotry for them to come to power this way, the great kings and warlords of the past would be laughing in the confusion of this hailstorm of absurdities that is the modern power struggle.
    The strong will emerge, just like Mr. Nietzsche said, sometime. I still am a believer in God and Jesus but I believe that this is what was intended for man, to explore all of his possibilities to the greatest extent with the physical and mental abilities given to him, not to let it go wasted. As men relinquish this drive to no longer pursue what was once a bold trip into the unknown, which has removed their backbone, so has their reflection, women, been unchained to the whores that they really are to emerge.
    Cultivate your skills and talents gents, and resist the hive-mind as much as you can. Violence is in the works, for our royal self-appointed malefactors won’t go down without a fight, and you can bet your asses they’ll use every deceptive and cowardly tactic in the book to keep themselves in their cushy seats. Get creative in your revolting

  20. I’ve always been seeking the rare “fatal women”, but in the end, i have just found a bunch of fatalist girls. They all miserably failed at my expectations. those suckers.

  21. “A slut only becomes a slut when she does not have the firm, masculine guidance which she needs. Nobody can give this to her but a man. It is a man’s responsibility to raise a daughter who is chaste and kind, and who embodies feminine virtues. If he fails to do this, he has deprived his daughter of the joy that comes with being a faithful wife and mother.
    Again, Nietzsche’s words ring true.”
    How utterly retarded of you to say! Men have no legal control over their children in the 21st century you fool. A man’s access to his children is now completely dictated by their mother.
    Jews are responsible for this, stop trying to laden guilt on the ROK readers you POS.

  22. If we start today, we might be able to salvage the damage of feminism in the next 10-20 years.

  23. Any man who thinks God is dead is a bigger fool than the one who says he does not know if God exists.

  24. So basically.. it’s not the criminal’s fault for committing the crime, it’s society’s?

    1. The only fault lies in those who think in terms of blame.
      Society creates the situations, crime is one circumstance. If society doesn’t like it, the responsibility to change it lies with society.
      There will never be any real progress until people grow up and stop focusing on blame and fault, and instead learn the proper meaning of responsibility.

      1. That’s too esoteric man.
        Look, someone steals your car. It’s not a matter of thinking in “terms” of blame. Blame lies square on the person responsible for stealing your car. It wasn’t society or his parent’s fault. He made a choice that others did not make. He stole.
        Same goes for women who are good-for-nothing gold-digging whores. Not all of them are like that because not all of them make the choice to be like that.
        Men are not to blame for what women choose to do.

        1. It is not necessary to lay blame at the foot of someone who stole your car. It is quite clear the theif was not adhering to societal rules.
          However If you dont want your car stolen a second time, you will modify your behaviour and ensure that for yourself.
          You may decide to reduce future odds of theft for everyone and contribute to fixing education systems, or the unbalanced distribution of wealth, or you may blame a subgroup and drive them out of town, but all of those actions are your own choice.
          Blame does not come into it, thats all I’m saying… Own your actions and do not blame other people in order to justify the consequences of your own choices.
          All of the time you spend proving yourself to be not to blame, and then moving the blame around as if it must exist, is completely wasted energy. The blame does not actually need to exist. You create it when you try to dodge it and do not consider properly your own actions and responses.

  25. I have a PhD in Philosophy and I have studied and taught Nietzsche. This post reads like a C- sophomore paper. I doubt the author has read a complete work by Nietzsche. Here’s why.
    Bruce Jenner is the ultimate Nietzchean. He is an example of ‘will to power’ to the nth degree. He is ignoring nature and reality and forging ahead with sheer will. It’s no surprise that he was a decathalete.
    Feminism is also will to power. Feminism ignores objective reality and seeks to refashion women.
    Gay marriage is Nietzchean. It’s the individual’s redefinition of “reality for me.”
    And let’s not forget that Nietzsche died as an insane man. None of us want that. We must observe natural law to be happy. We cannot forge the fantasy of our own reality.
    Men today need Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Natural Law. Objective standards that are timeless. Realism.
    In the Philosophy department we joke that there is nothing worse than an 18 year old boy who’s obsessed with Nietzsche. He thinks it makes him a badass, but he’ll be a SJW socialist in 2.5 years. Sad.
    Taylor Marshall

    1. there is some small kernel of being correct here Taylor. However, you have unfortunately covered it with so much smarmy cuntiness that it has been rendered useless. Next time you are in the philosophy department joking about 18 year old boys and, presumably, jerking each other off while looking at Judith Butler’s pap smear why don’t you try to discuss how to be useful instead of a bunch of trite and meaningless shitholes?

      1. I don’t think there’s a flaw in his logic,nor was he making stuff up. And as for “cuntiness” re-read your own.

    2. Well stated. I’ve often made the point that Nietzsche’s writings and thoughts are akin to a great firework show, that cause intellectual bedazzlement that can certainly vivify the mind.
      However the majority of his thoughts are not accurate or truthful in any empirical manner, despite what his supporters continue to say, most of his thoughts were solipsistic and predicated by issues that often clouded his critical judgment. He’ll no doubt continue to attract readers, but, he should be read more as a provocative essayist rather than a philosopher. If this were also the case, his notion of “truth” won’t have the degree of unwarranted traction it currently enjoys among many post modernist academics.

      1. A question from a novice:
        If all these groups mentioned adhere to Nietzsche (feminist, genderists, gays) because of their alleged ‘will to power’, how come they all at the same time destroys the society in which they strive, and hence force destroy them selves. Is this a ‘will to power’?
        Or is it just pissing your pants to keep comfy?

        1. Well we’re all novices.
          The “will to power” in the modern sense in my opinion is based (regardless of left or right) on a sense of resentment and self-hatred combined with a feeling of “natural entitlement” to tell the so called “masses” what to do and how to think. This later form is particularly pronounced with elements of the “new left” who are largely under 30, urban, university educated, and often female. What’s especially corrosive and noxious about the “will to power” of the new left is their self-inflated sense of superiority combined with very minimal life experiences (often never working in the real world) that makes the nonsensical ideology they espouse, not intellectually difficult to defeat, but, nevertheless because of the peculiar combination of ignorance and arrogance it has a lot of emotional appeal to younger people, who believe, whose minds and characters have been formed by life at this point.
          To answer your question this type of will to power is different to Nietzsche’s as the modern version is predicated by resentment and self-hatred for the traditions of the host culture they came from. It’s this opposition which defines the movement and gives its “will to power” its unique energy. This “will to power” which doesn’t care about the destruction and havoc it causes- only desires one thing- which is POWER, and, this type of naked “will to power” is no different from the Nazis or Stalin’s hatchet men following orders from their masters above (most of which were people with limited intelligence or vision).
          If you want a definition of pure evil in the world, then its the unchecked tyranny of this type of will to power that either individuals or the State can have if left unchecked over the natural, God given freedom of any citizen born in a democracy. This is why citizens should always have the right to bear arms.

        2. Thank you. Good thoughts to ponder.
          I agree wholeheartedly to analysis of the hatred of these new SJW under 30 without life experience. They have always been a part of the communist movement, but today their power is approaching the ridiculous.
          We used to write satirical comedies on the young and stupid. No more.
          I disagree on the way you equate to Nazi (National Socialists?) and Stalin. The latter being evil at a scale unmatched by anybody. But that’s a different discussion.
          As to the definition of pure evil, I see your examples, but maybe even worse is the hidden one we have today, which raise havoc with anything once considered decent.
          And I have my guns. So far only for big game hunting ;-).

    3. “Nature and reality” Nature and reality according to what you attribute to them, right?
      “Objective standards”, how can you have a phD in Philosophy and believe in objective reality after existentialism? There is literally nothing we can prove to be separate of our own minds, even if it is so.
      “Realism” – The word people like to call their worldview to convince themselves that’s the real one.
      Your understanding of Nietzsche is piss-poor, almost as bad as those terrible weak-willed transhumanists who think they are the Ubermensch. Nietzsche wasn’t a relativist, his perspectivism is much more complicated than ‘everything is up to me’
      And while it’s true that Nietzsche went insane in the end, that was due to his brain tumor, and his insanity seems to have had an effect only on Ecce Homo.

    4. Dr. Marshall,
      While fulling agreeing with your assertion that the author of the piece shows a pretty poor understanding of Nietzche, your “proposal” is disconcerting:
      “We must observe natural law to be happy. We cannot forge the fantasy of our own reality. Men today need Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Natural Law. Objective standards that are timeless. Realism.”
      This actually leads me to question your own understanding of post-thomistic philosophy. Your PhD dissertation was based on Thomas Aquinus, and all of your books focus on pre-Renaissance subjects. Are you aware that much post-kantian philosophy, and certainly most of 20th century philosophy challenges the premises of “natural law” and “objective standards”? Have you ever read Heidegger, Husserl, Schopenhauer, Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault, or even Zizek?
      But of course, coming from a Catholic convert like yourself, I am not surprised that you try to present your own views (or at least the views you agree with) as some sort of Natural Law.

  26. “Set the frame that she’s a chaste virgin, and she will act like a chaste virgin when she’s with you”
    This is just bullshit, or at least you completely misunderstood Nietzsche.
    It never had to do with men “setting their frame”, it was all about societal consequences that used to exist in the past. A father today “setting a frame” would maybe have some but probably little effect on his daughter after she left the home. But such consequences of actions that used to exist in the past would have had a devastating effect, if a woman had extramarital sex in the past she would have found it almost impossible to find a husband, that’s a consequence of her actions, so women refrained from having extramarital sex. And even if they did and had a baby outside marriage, that baby was usually sent away. These limitations were set by society as a whole.

    1. Women have never refrained from extra marital sex. It was common over 100 years ago and it was also common for such women to find a husband.

      1. This is also bullshit. Obviously extra marital sex was much less common a hundred years ago, and if it was known that women engaged in it, yes, they would also have it less easy to find a husband.

        1. As they say, ignorance is bliss.
          Adultery is still illegal in 21 US states, but it doesn’t seem to have stopped anyone. Famous adulterers include Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Kennedy, John F Kennedy, every Royal Family anywhere, Erwin Schrodinger of cat fame, and Charles Lindbergh
          Fornication was not generally regarded as a crime anywhere except in the Puritan USA where 18 in states passed statutes creating the offence of fornication. Most of these laws either were repealed, were not enforced, or were struck down by the courts.
          Extra marital sex was much less common one hundred years ago because contraception was unreliable. It still happened.

        2. Let’s start with why are we concentrating on USA? Adultery and fornication were crimes in Europe as well.
          That laws are not enforced today doesn’t mean they were not enforced in the past.
          And contraception was not the only cause, you are oversimplifying, I also never said that extramarital sex and adultery *didn’t* happen.

  27. I have an issue with the meme posted at the bottom of this article. Truly Patriarchal societies are extremely oppressive and uncivilized..for male and female alike…

  28. “When you go to fight the monsters be sure that you yourself do not become a monster. For when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes long into you.”
    -The Immortal -Nietzsche

  29. This is a juvenile understanding of Nietzsche who neither has read the myriad books he references, essential to understanding his worldview, nor that he did not write a coherent philosophy, but outlined the questions upon which a future philosophy should answer. (Duh, “Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future).
    What is most annoying is this reeks of the kind of Ayn Randian thinking of an armchair philosopher. No, Nietzsche was not a fanatical egoist and narcissist like the typical Manosphere denizen or Libertarian.
    A careful reading would indicate that he in fact believes that Gods are essential to the functioning of society, and that our challenge in the post-scientific age is creating new ones that are just as radical as Christianity was in terms of its transvaluation of values.
    One could go on, and on, and on.
    But what is most hilarious is these are the same old “game” and “player” tropes that have been repeated endlessly for years. There must be 100 articles on this site just like this one, absent Nietzsche.

  30. “But Jon!” I can hear you say, “I’m 35, and I don’t want to fuck sluts anymore. I want to find a wife!”
    And there is the problem in a nutshell. 35 year old teenagers with low IQ, no self esteem and no idea how human relationships work. Beyond help of any kind.

  31. “If there’s only one lesson I impart to you today, I hope that it is this: we must create more high quality men who embody the principles of neomasculinity if we wish to see the West survive.”
    Nietzsche would not have recommended that approach. He regarded the aristocracy as all the high quality men needed because they are/were biologically superior. He regarded ordinary human beings as the bungled and botched, incapable of becoming high quality.

  32. When you view it in this way, you realize that the entire phenomenon of feminism is nothing but a massive shit test. And Western men failed at it miserably.

  33. One who throws around terms like “pseudo-intellectual” would do well to practice a modicum of intellectual rigour.

  34. One who throws around words like “pseudo-intellectual” would do well to practice a modicum of intellectual rigour.

  35. One who throws around words like “pseudo-intellectual” would do well to practice a modicum of intellectual rigour.
    Censorship is terribly unmasculine.

Comments are closed.