- Joined
- May 19, 2026
- Messages
- 1,793
- Thread Author
- #1
I have a confession I d0nt read nietzsche. I tried to read it when I was in HS so I picked a book about zarathustra and I found it unreadable and pompous. I understood years later that nietzsche did it on purpose to mimick some religious posture. So my initial judgement was probably wrong and unair. But despite this fact I didnt r3adit. I have checked summaries of nietzsche and asked AI to help me understand, and then I seen his memes online. But most importantly I payed attention to the discussion and public perception of nietzsche.
Was told by AI that if I dont know the 19th century lutheran culture in germany I will not understand the jokes of nietzsche. Indeed I dont have any idea of that culture. I will simply pretend nietzsche is presenting to us a "model of superman", and I will judge it.
The most unimpressive philosophies belong to the right wing. These are Nietzsche and Carlyle. I consider both of them false. Nietzsche is used by xtian apologists to psyop the youth, tell them "hey you dont believe morals are objective, then you ought to obey nietzsche, then your life sucks, cant live like that? then join the church". Its a blatant scam, run by deceivers of youth such as Juden Peterstein.
Carlyle is run as a scam by jewish people such as curtis yarwin and that dude whos into accelerationism, he says theres the "great man" and masses obey to him. But its complete nonsense unrealistic, with very few examples if any. Bcause for every example you can do, any conspiracy theorist can excavate the truth behind the "great leader".
True models are the following: Dannunzio superuomo (the most objective), stirner (possible, realistic), bernard shaw (true "in theory")
The 3 models of superman I listed are undoubtedly true. Dannunzio is the model that is most spread and can be demonstrated. I can do a list of people who attained superman status using dannunzio theory. There is peggy guggenheim for example. But dannunzio theory also includes religious elites, they are the ones most suited for the role of mythmaker elite.
Stirner theory is possible and super realistic. Lots of normies presume is not even possible, because they dont know and they did not live the experience, they presume it requires some heavy dose of antisocial behavior. Its all fake, easier to do it than speak of it and try to describe how it is to a normie. It would be like try to tell a blind man what is a world of colors.
Bernard shaw theory is also possible, but "in theory", bcause it requires hightech. Once you attain this status, it can be proved. Also, it is presented a real model of ascension that is vertical, it presume humans dont have to remain what they are now.
Was told by AI that if I dont know the 19th century lutheran culture in germany I will not understand the jokes of nietzsche. Indeed I dont have any idea of that culture. I will simply pretend nietzsche is presenting to us a "model of superman", and I will judge it.
The most unimpressive philosophies belong to the right wing. These are Nietzsche and Carlyle. I consider both of them false. Nietzsche is used by xtian apologists to psyop the youth, tell them "hey you dont believe morals are objective, then you ought to obey nietzsche, then your life sucks, cant live like that? then join the church". Its a blatant scam, run by deceivers of youth such as Juden Peterstein.
Carlyle is run as a scam by jewish people such as curtis yarwin and that dude whos into accelerationism, he says theres the "great man" and masses obey to him. But its complete nonsense unrealistic, with very few examples if any. Bcause for every example you can do, any conspiracy theorist can excavate the truth behind the "great leader".
True models are the following: Dannunzio superuomo (the most objective), stirner (possible, realistic), bernard shaw (true "in theory")
The 3 models of superman I listed are undoubtedly true. Dannunzio is the model that is most spread and can be demonstrated. I can do a list of people who attained superman status using dannunzio theory. There is peggy guggenheim for example. But dannunzio theory also includes religious elites, they are the ones most suited for the role of mythmaker elite.
Stirner theory is possible and super realistic. Lots of normies presume is not even possible, because they dont know and they did not live the experience, they presume it requires some heavy dose of antisocial behavior. Its all fake, easier to do it than speak of it and try to describe how it is to a normie. It would be like try to tell a blind man what is a world of colors.
Bernard shaw theory is also possible, but "in theory", bcause it requires hightech. Once you attain this status, it can be proved. Also, it is presented a real model of ascension that is vertical, it presume humans dont have to remain what they are now.
