Rome vs Israel (Nietzsche, continued)
Following the current PC fashion, cafe-Nietzscheans insist that Nietzsche was not anti-semitic. This is not entirely accurate. Nietzsche may have balked at the extreme right of Bismarck's era (unlike Wagner, who did sign on---one hopes both FN and RW would have objected to a Himmler sort of final solution, but that is not entirely clear), yet anti-semitic passages can be found a plenty in Nietzsche's writing. This section from "The Genealogy of Morals" indicates quite clearly that Nietzsche was not only attacking Christianity but the Jews as well, "the priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence":
"""How, on the other hand, did the Jews feel about Rome? A thousand signs tell us; but it suffices to recall the Apocalypse of John, the most wanton of all literary outbursts that vengefulness has on its conscience. (One should not underestimate the profound consistency of the Christian instinct when it signed this book of hate with the name of the disciple of love, the same disciple to whom it attributed that amorous-enthusiastic Gospel: there is a piece of truth in this, however much literary counterfeiting might have been required to provide it.) For the Romans were the strong and noble, and nobody stronger and nobler has yet existed on earth or even been dreamed of: every remnant of them, every inscription gives delight, if only one divines what it was that was there at work. The Jews, on the contrary, were the priestly nation of ressentiment par excellence, in whom there dwelt an unequalled popular-moral genius: one only has to compare similarly gifted nations—the Chinese or the Germans, for instance—with the Jews, to sense which is of the first and which of the fifth rank. 
Which of them has won for the present, Rome or Judea? There can be no doubt: consider to whom one bows down in Rome itself today, as if they were the epitome of all the highest values —and not only in Rome but over almost half the earth, everywhere that man has become tame or desires to become tame: three Jews, as is known, and one Jewess (Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome has been defeated beyond all doubt. 
There was, to be sure, in the Renaissance an uncanny and glittering reawakening of the classical ideal, of the noble mode of evaluating all things; Rome itself, oppressed by the new superimposed Judaized Rome that presented the aspect of an ecumenical synagogue and was called the "church," stirred like one awakened from seeming death: but Judea immediately triumphed again, thanks to that thoroughly plebeian (German and English) ressentiment movement called the Reformation, and to that which was bound to arise from it, the restoration of the church—the restoration too of the ancient sepulchral repose of classical Rome.. . ."""
Really one tires of the grand generalizations. Notwithstanding the typical bombast, we should note the attack on the Book of Revelation. That's the somewhat rational side of Nietzsche creeping out (a rarity). Jefferson, hardly the machiavellian that Nietzsche was, considered the Book of Rev. "merely the ravings of a maniac." (both were most likely fond of Voltaire's writings)
One might question whether identifying the Book of Rev. with jewish tradition is correct: for one, some biblical scholars suggest that the Revelator was a Roman, or at least converted gentile of some sort. Who cares, really. AS both Nietzsche and Jefferson realized, the Book of Rev. reveals the madness of Scripture as a whole (though that's not to yawp, Hitchens style, that it's all BS. The Beatitudes will do for beat poesy--so will the book of Psalms. FN might have agreed). For Nietzsche the madness speaks of Judea, and the ressentiment of the jewish and then jew-Christian scribes. One can hardly fail to term that a type of anti-semitism, and anti-zionism--not quite Himmler, but a profound dislike for judeo-christian tradition and culture (and we might also recall that roman historians such as Tacitus took Xtians to be a jewish sect). That hardly implies that one should toss TGOM or Nietzsche as a whole. That is the raw honest power, the wolf-sublimity of Nietzsche that must be acknowledged, however much it offends the regs at Cafe-Gauche.
And there's another somewhat rational point (one that TJ himself might respect). Nietzsche indicates the essential paradox (even dangerous paradox) of Scripture, and of the New Testament, that supposed Gospel of Luv: as Nietzsche says, "one should not underestimate the profound consistency of the Christian instinct when it signed this book of hate with the name of the disciple of love, the same disciple to whom it attributed that amorous-enthusiastic Gospel." Das stimmt! That same hysteria and irrational faith characteristic of the Revelator (that both Nietzsche and Jefferson attack) exists today, mainly in the protestant churches, whether that of a Hagee (McCain's pastor-general) or Wright (Obama's pastor-panderer (at least until a few weeks ago).
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
- ► 2011 (249)
- ► 2010 (266)
- ► 2009 (184)
- Kant's 3rd Few people who have made it through Kan...
- Prevarication, Kossack styleMany Democrats routine...
- while you shop contingencies, enjoy "on green dolp...
- The Ecclesiastix Gang (Jimmy Madison nostalgia hou...
- Politics of Satire“Satire is a sort of glass, wher...
- "Liberal Fascism""""Youth politics—like populism g...
- Stan da Man.
- "I shall not vote for Sen. Obama" (Christopher Hit...
- Holy Moral-Assay-Processes Batman (24/7 Stuckey's,...
- Barack Obama: I've chosen La Gran Puta de Babilon ...
- Rome vs Israel (Nietzsche, continued)Following the...
- ▼ June (11)
- ► 2007 (154)
- ► 2006 (69)
- ► 2005 (57)
- ► 2004 (28)
Hey McDewd: you keep forgetting many things. Like one, I'm str8 , about 200 lbs, 6 ft. in good physical shape. Two, I am quite sure I know a great deal more about music--classical, jazz, and otherwise--than you do. Three, I know more about philosophy and history than you do. You know more about the P-burg pirates than I do, and maybe about Apples, and geology.
(You might outcode me on Apple or some open source graphix, but I suspect I'd match you in html, PhP, even java and C (and networking admin))
Four, I don't care for liars, or deceivers, such as yr pal Tusconia, or for little insinuations or defamations. At all.
(and, to be honest, Wagner is not for amateurs, except the very socially ambitious booj-wah)
Let's take these one at a time and try to cool down a little.
"Like one, I'm str8 , about 200 lbs, 6 ft. in good physical shape."
I am sincerely impressed and happy you're in good health. If this is meant to inspire fear or dread in me it does not because I am in no way desirous of physical confrontation with someone I admire for the most part and consider a friend.
"Two, I am quite sure I know a great deal more about music--classical, jazz, and otherwise--than you do."
I agree completely. I still feel indebted to you for the valuable lessons you gave me so many years ago and for inspiring me toward greater interest in music.
"Three, I know more about philosophy and history than you do."
Definitely true for philosophy- I'm a rank beginner. As for history, I have segments I've studied and feel somewhat competent in discussing, but I have no desire to challenge your mastery of this subject.
"Four, I don't care for liars, or deceivers, such as yr pal Tusconia, or for little insinuations or defamations. At all."
You've lost me there. Byron's a friend, as is Tom, as are you. Friends should be cool with a little verbal jousting and razzing.
"Wagner is not for amateurs..."
For discussing or for enjoying? If you mean for the latter, then I guess I've finally found something where I'm no longer an amateur.
Alright, not a bad response, but I don't think you understand how much of the writing on your site appears to me. I am cool with some "verbal jousting and razzing."""
Your pals (especially TuscRon) have taken it beyond jousting, however (tho' he appears to have taken a break---must be busy time at the West Sac LDS temple, or something).
It's usually more like harsh insults, defamation, and misrepresentation--like calling someone a conservative simply for not supporting Obama. I'm not supporting McCain (as he falsely claimed, along with his false claims I was in GOP (never), or a racist. Hah.IM the one representing for talented minorities--say Horace Silver).
I'm also the one who brought up Hitchens and posted some anti-religious things. I never claimed to be a genius, but feel that you (perhaps following B-ron) have created this strange figure on NW (and among yr regs) that has little to do with me. I'm a moderate politically: and unlike most on NW, do not attend sunday school.
"It's usually more like harsh insults, defamation, and misrepresentation--like calling someone a conservative simply for not supporting Obama. I'm not supporting McCain (as he falsely claimed, along with his false claims I was in GOP (never), or a racist. Hah.IM the one representing for talented minorities--say Horace Silver)."
You speak as one wounded by baseless attacks at NW, but who are you really to be claiming victimhood? You refuse to use a consistent identity and the names you choose create a caricature of that you claim not to be. Your mock racism intending to shock perceived milquetoast suburban sensibilities contributes to the facade you hide behind.
I don't use my given name, but Max is proud to be Max and has no need to put on false airs. It's a true alter ego- another side of me. Max doesn't blab about what he is not. He is a progressive liberal with a lot of eclectic interests and passions- many contradictory and confused. Max can live with that and cares not if he is called by terrible names, because he senses who he really is and feels no shame in it. He'll continue to talk about whatever the hell he wants.
BTW- Das Rheingold was superb. Stay tuned for my uninformed hack rant.
Not about acting (I detest actors more often than not), or creating anything. The s-names are throw-aways. One reason for the binary and #'s or a strange name --Rommel--is to shake up sites, or sunday school liberals.
I have the Ring on vid, and have even watched like 1/4 of it. Paraphrasing Twain, the music's better than it seems, or something. (the production is BBC, or Met, something--a chubby german tenor who died a while back). I enjoy some of it--Siegfried's long moans (nazis liked that too), when done authentically. Other sections work, tho' sort of cliche now. Mostly (not all) Disneyesque entertainment for the prussian landed gentry. Nietzsche thought found "Die Gotterdammerung" bombastic as well.
The nordic-river scenes are interesting. Yet I suspect when done in SF, kitschy, probably very ironic, with some cute whores as Rhine maidens, chubby opera boys warbling away. Wagner believes that nordic jive: he intended to to inspire right-wing, caucasian nationalism. It's a call for the heroes of the Fatherland. Now it's like a cartoon--Kill DA Wabbit!
I don't recall there being a lot of religions that Nietzsche lovingly embraced. Does this specifically make him antisemitic? I'm not so sure. And I don't recall, either, the supermen of the world being confined to any specific race or ethniciy (gender obviously!). Ergo, I do think the Nazis twisted his works unrecognizable.
I will agree that FN's not the antisemite that the nazis took him to be. William Shirer, who penned "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich" said as much.
Even if not antisemite in the way a beast like Himmler was, Nietzsche was not the hipster that some liberals (or postmodernists) now read him as, however. And his later works, like the Antichrist are even more gonzo-militarist than TGOM, or BGAE. Indeed, Nietzsche seems to have had a bit of a Islamic sensibility (to be noted in his comments regarding Fred. II).
Nietzsche had also read his Darwin, and he denies the very possibility of democracy, Justice, "rights", etc. What does a Darwinian fundamentalist say in regards to great atrocities?? (the key difference between FN and CD being Nietzsche's insistence on human Will as separate from mechanistic, animalic behavior. Darwin's not that kind) He can't say much: territory battles between primates. So, like Operation Barbarossa: the nazi wolves attack the soviet jackals or something.
Once one agrees that the Kantian ghost has been snuffed (or was never there), one shouldn't go crying about injustices or atrocity (yet that doesn't stop many sentimental liberals, many who profess to be Darwinists).
I have no problem snuffing out the ghost, personally. And, yes, despite this, I do have enough sense to know that war of all against all is something to be avoided. Call me a pragmatist, I guess.
Hey Dave, frat-boy snitch: Word. Don't post anymore of yr little whines here. For that matter, like don't post anything more on Nietzsche. Blogland doesn't need another Rotarian Nietzschean. You don't know what Nietzsche is: quite evident in your complete lack of attention to the text itself (and if I get more riled, I might contaxt some old professors now back east and have yr little history career terminated). Go back to like the methodist church or whereever you crawled out of. Or, say, in Nietzschean style (that is the real Nietzsche, not the Davey version), step in a ring, and Ill show you the Raubtier.
Post a Comment