Why is Nietzsche celebrated by leftist Jew humanities academics?

If you have ever read philosophy books by liberal humanities scholars such as Martha Nussbaum or Walter Kauffman, you would know that Nietzsche is one of the most celebrated intellectual giants of the university Left, whose stature is similar to Michel Foucault or Jacques Derrida.

If Nietzsche is such a red pilling figure, why is he so admired and talked about by the chattering classes?

Could it be that the narrative that Christianity is a degenerate Jewish rouse, is itself, a Jewish narrative?

Or has Nietzsche been systematically misrepresented by contemporary humanities scholars? Is it possible that Jewish publishers could have intervened to make his original writing more 'kosher'?

Personally, I find Nietzsche to be an ambiguous figure, speaking as a Traditionalist with sympathies for Monarchism and Fascism.

Other urls found in this thread:

smoloko.com/?p=17386
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Is it possible that Jewish publishers could have intervened to make his original writing more 'kosher'?
Who knows

They reviled him for ages, there's a fake autobiography about him routinely fucking his sister for God's sake (lol fucking Zoroastrians hahaha amirite goy). Some of what he wrote is reasonably on point with regards to what was going on at the time, but in the end the fact remains that he was mostly a sad and easily attackable deadbeat whom they deemed useful in undermining German national pride through aggressive marketing of his works and association with movements critical of their own (what with the whole "I'm totally Polish" thing, the "Yo that God you're technically called the Chosen of by Jesus? He's dead and we, you as my fellow Germans and myself, we have killed him." thing and that bit about him literally getting kicked out of Germany for being too much of a pedantic deadbeat (before dying alone of the syphilis in a Swiss asylum)). Nowadays though he serves as the go-to backdrop because most of his stuff is too overquoted for anybody to actually read it (the way everyone totally knows the Bible etc) and it sort of explains shit without having to dig into that whole "Jews wanting the Germans wiped out for not genociding them" thing that might be bad for Israel.

There are other passages in Nietszche where you find exessive and out of place praise of Jews.

because they have never read any of his moral philosophy where he shits all over leftist ideas as harmful slave morality.

Also, in academia he is taught as being unable to be made palatable. It was said his ideas would be at odds with common sense morality, especially his thoughts on women conquest and slavery.

Nietzsche despised liberals and prophesied the coming cultural wars a century before they came

Libtards just love anything edgy that gives them a chance to be faux-intellectuals

These sections are glossed over and represented as affirmations of individualism and rebelliousness.

Nietzsche actually predicted that because of modern philosophy millions of people would die as a result in the 20th century - he was really against ideologies like communism and fascism

He was a liberal in the classic sense (radical individualism). We need to stop using that word for leftists. Call them leftists or progressives. They are not liberal.

Nietzsche was an ontologist.

He was also the kind of genius that Jews fear and respect (as much as they respect anygoy).

All the Jew intellectuals that followed Nietzsche transform him into a linguist-- Freud and Lacan and Derrida and etc--, because Jews are obsessed to frame everything as words, to control everything with words. Jews have neutered Nietzsche by presenting him as himself fixated on language.

yup, leftists do the same thing with the likes of plato and aristotle, they tend to omit their fascist ideas whenever they discuss them

In particular, the academic Left is fond of Nietzsche's praise of Dionysus. They use him to promote anti-Christian sentiment and immoral hedonism.

His description of leftism in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is amazing.

Because he is confusing them.

I don't know if they have even read Nietzsche. Probably seen some cool quotes on the interwebs that fit in their worldview and conclude that he must be a left-liberal goy like they are.

Nietzsche was redpilled on women. Was not fond of slave morality. Called out equality as what is, a horrifying idea. He had so many ideas that are incompatible with your left-liberal views I will never get how they like him.

Admittedly he was not fond of nationalism either, but times have changed. In his times, nationalism meant pointless brother wars between nations with only superficial differences. European empires were conquering the world and even the thought that we would submit willfully to niggers and sandniggers probably didn't occur to him.

The perfect woman was closer to his ideal of Übermensch than the perfect man though.

The Left appropriated Nietzsche to destroy bourgeois Christian values, and promote hedonism and a counter-culture of careless rebellion.

He was an anarchist you idiot, his sister who was a nazi edited his books and added loads of nazi shit into it but he hated nazis and said they should be shot

>Could it be that the narrative that Christianity is a degenerate Jewish rouse, is itself, a Jewish narrative?

Who nose?

>Personally, I find Nietzsche to be an ambiguous figure
Same. The genius of Nietzsche is that he isn't teaching an ideology. He's teaching an epistemology. A way for you to learn your own moral truths, rather than accepting the "good and evil" set down before you without questioning. That to me has always been the absolute core of his Superman.
But at the same time he isn't a complete relativist. He believes in good and evil as realities, unlike the Post-modernists like Derrida. Nietzsche just believes they are not completely known or understood, and thus you should learn your parents morals, then question them, and determine for yourself their validity.

Not really. He admired their will to power, sure, but in a reluctant of way sort of like "this worked and is the marvel of history but it's pretty grotesque"

He said the recent appearance of "the stock-market Jew" is perhaps "the most disgusting creature the world has yet created" or something along those lines (cba to find the actual quote but that is basically what he says).

He criticised provincial anti-semitism because it was stupid and epitomised in his mind be his idiot brother-in-law--but his own dislike of the Jews ran much deeper, so much so that he placed them in a central place of a 2000 year subversion of the European peoples, their native customs and moralities (and innate virility).

>If Nietzsche is such a red pilling figure, why
They cover up his works and stear you away from qoutes like these

But because of him Freud, Jung, Hitler, Marx you name it... Everyone followed and was inspired by him.

And the modern consumerist self-contented pleb is perfectly epitomised by his concept of the "last man" who "makes everything small"

"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink

Leftists take his deconstructive aspects because they're incapable of doing their own thinking in that regard, but then ignore everything else, including how he comes down radically on what would be the extreme right wing of every modern debate.

Kind of true but you really only need to read one or two of Nietzsche's books to realise

He proclaimed the building up of a "great health" and the necessity of "becoming hard"--he was protofascistic, but he just saw Christianity at the root of leftist subversion rather than Marxism/Communism/Anarchism (consequences of diseased minds in his view, but also products of two millenia of the enfeebling consequences of Christian morality)

They've never read him. They just heard the "God is dead XDD" sentence somewhere without even knowing its context and think he's the coolest shit with the hottest opinions.

Nietzsche is one of the most celebrated philosophers generally. If you make a good point, other traditions have to grapple with the point you make. Hence why lots of non Leftist philosophy grapples with Marx

>He was an anarchist
>you idiot

Yes, an anarchist who promoted a caste system and the unification of Europe to undergo the war of all wars against Russia (out of which could be born a new kind of man and a new kind of morality).

To no-one does the concept of baptism by fire better apply than Nietzsche.

baka at how someone can be so proudly bleat such utter drivel.

During a time where everyone was religious, he developed a philosophic structure advocating the death of religiously instilled values and a transition to personally developed value systems in what was more or less a nihilistic world. At least, that's what I got out of it. Legit the most subversive thing you could do at that point.

Liberals are so retarded they actually think nihilism is a good thing (much i fucking love science) and think Nietzsche promoted nihilism.

jewish antichristian hate most def spot on
that is their main goal. christians first, all else is second
smoloko.com/?p=17386

>Hence why lots of non Leftist philosophy grapples with Marx
Leaf tier bait

I listened to a review of Christopher Hitchens' "God is not Great" by the theologian David Bentley Hart, and Hart pointed out that Hitchens writes in this book as if he actually believed Nietzsche was speaking literally when he announced "God is dead", and not simply speaking metaphorically in terms of how Nietzsche believed that elements of the supernatural, the exalted and the sublime had vanished from European culture.

This. He is even more loved today, because most people in the Western civilization live nihilism.

his work is highly open to contested interpretations.

He doesn't really fit into any conventional framework.

Rightists like Nietzsche to the extent that he provided a coherent foundation for a politics based upon strength and divorced from liberalism.

Leftists like him for his capacity and methodology of critiquing society and social/moral norms.

So you could conclude that rightists appreciate him for his substance, and leftists for his form.

>During a time where everyone was religious
Religion (or at least religiosity) was dying really fast in Europe back then. If anything, he warned that such a schism with our morals structures would cause the nihilism to infect western society.

>he developed a philosophic structure advocating the death of religiously instilled values and a transition to personally developed value systems in what was more or less a nihilistic world.
He wasn't a nihilist, man, he was trying to find a way out of it.

He what? Can you provide quotes or paragraphs on that? It's years ago when I read his works, but I can't recall any mention of perfect woman. What I do remember is something along the lines that women can not become übermensch, but they should aspire to become mothers of übermensch.

He promoted nihilism, though. It doesn't extend from him but he is an existential nihilist. He just found a meager solution in its troubles through existentialism that inspired many.

Pretty much this. However that's it for the common person. In academia his understanding of power heavily inspired postmodernism, as they understand everything in regards to power.

did he write any good books that are relevant to natsoc?although his negative views on christianity are not exactly true and are ironically what the jews want, i hear good things about him

To be precise, he was an atheist who was searching for a value system which would overcome the nihilism of atheism.

It's something you conclude from connecting his concept of Übermensch (that was tied to what he believed was the inversion of values that Christianity promoted, and how a return to the original values, to the natural world, was necessary in order for humanity to overcome the abyss of nihilism) to how closer to the "inhuman" (Unmensch) women are compared to men.

Here are some quotes.

From "Human, All Too Human"
>377. THE PERFECT WOMAN. The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare. The natural science of animals offers a means to demonstrate the probability of this tenet.

From "Beyond Good and Evil"
>239. (...)to make the "weaker sex" STRONG by culture: as if history did not teach in the most emphatic manner that the "cultivating" of mankind and his weakening--that is to say, the weakening, dissipating, and languishing of his FORCE OF WILL--have always kept pace with one another, and that the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will--and not their schoolmasters--for their power and ascendancy over men. That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her NATURE, which is more "natural" than that of man, her genuine, carnivora-like, cunning flexibility, her tiger-claws beneath the glove, her NAIVETE in egoism, her untrainableness and innate wildness, the incomprehensibleness, extent, and deviation of her desires and virtues.

From "On the Genealogy of Morals"
>(...)Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon appeared as a man more unique and late-born for his times than ever a man
had been before, and in him, the problem of the noble ideal itself was made
flesh – just think what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of
Unmensch (brute) and Übermensch (overman) . . .

Or any other passage where he makes a metaphor involving predators and "birds of prey."

The part you mentioned about women being mothers of Übermenschen is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra if I'm not mistaken, but I think it refers to the fact that this ideal of humanity either has not been achieved yet or can never be truly achieved, and therefore it is women's role to beget generations ever closer to it.

Heir to Schopenahauer as I recall. Basic history criticism and ethics + practical morality written entertainingly.

I haven't read much of him, so I wouldn't know right now. The finn user said he wasn't a fan of it, so I guess you could ask him for more details.

Yeah, I knew he was an atheist but I didn't want to extend myself on that because even if I know a bit more than the typical liberal, my knowledge on him is still very limited.

By the way, that section from Beyond Good and Evil is really fucking pertinent to the current state of the Western world.

Thanks for these.

The ideal role of women has been on mind for some time. Much more confusing to think about the ''perfect woman'' than the ''perfect man''. She is much more blurred than he is.

>Why is Nietzsche celebrated by leftist Jew humanities academics?

Because he's a Nihilist.

No he isn't. He grants life the ultimate value in a way that is fundamentally essentialist. He tried to carve a transcendent pathway that was not rooted in mere superstition, but in the abolute value of life, being a perspectivist, and life being the only thing with perspective.

He is very ambiguous, and leftist academics aren't particularly careful in their interpretation of him.

He writes in aphorisms, they mine his work for what they want and discard the rest.

They do the same with Kant, Hegel, and Marx, each of whom is more left friendly than Nietzsche yet still politically incorrect in many places.

The underlying reason is that leftists believe in historical progress. Thus they think that anything from the past that validates their view is to be valued as contributing to progress and anything that doesn't discarded as a remnant of a more backward time and culture.

This view insulates them from any critique originating in an author from a previous time. They see no need to address his thought as a logically coherent body. They easily dismember it into parts yet like, and parts they don't.

Aren't some lives better than others according to Nietzsche? If so, life itself isn't the ultimate value and the value of a life is determined by whether a life measures up to and other criteria.

What is untrue about his view of Christianity?

Nietzsche is known for his sarcasm and irony

His views of Christianity fit very much enlightenment-era and post-enlightenment Protestantism, which he was born into. His reading of saints before this are well understood to be misrepresented.

Generally, classical Christianity and Christianity outside of it never manifest resentment. The saints are representative of virtue, rather.

Further, while slave morality may fit with Judaism, Christianity's morality comes about from the idea that through God's we become more real to ourselves.

To suggest that Christianity was instituted as a deliberate attempt to weaken the warrior values and the traditions of the nations of Europe is pretty crazy if you are at all familiar with the relationship between Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. Synagogue Judaism espouses a hatred of Christianity which borders on the psychotic. As much as Muslims hate Christians for being idolaters because of the doctrine of the trinity, they at least maintain great respect for Jesus Christ and his mother. We can argue about whether Christianity somehow weakened European civilisation (I don't know exactly what the counterfactual is in this comparison). But saying that Jews 'tricked' Europeans into becoming Christian is just a bizarre conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence in support, and I would be shocked if Nietzsche actually promulgated such an idea.

The life that ascends is more important than the life that descends according to Nietzsche. But the former is made possible by the later (Zarathustra's "over-going" and "down-going.")

It's hard to tell whether he was being sarcastic or not there. I'm aware that he wrote that sort of thing to tease antisemites at least, since he used to do that frequently.

Another example, from Twilight of the Idols:

>19. What? You elected virtue and the swelled bosom and yet you leer enviously at the advantages of those without qualms? But virtue involves renouncing "advantages." (Inscription for an anti-Semite's door.)

It's just anti-jewish people who have no grasp of the Jewish Question and see things as loosely connected to Jews in any way but anti-jewish as corrupt.

Nietzsche had the insight to see (rightly) that Christianity and liberalism spring from the same egalitarian emotional root. His philosophy is the antithesis of all of modernity. He called out the socialists at academia for what they were: peddlers of slave morality.
I don't know why the Left admires him so much. It truly doesn't make any sense. Maybe they will admire anyone who attacked Christianity. Clearly they're too stupid to understand his philosophy as a whole.

What's a reliable translation of his work to use? Esp considering the funny business by his sisters edits...

He did not propagate such an idea. What he said is that Judaism and Christianity are both religions which promote egalitarian slave morality as opposed to hierarchical master morality.

>The underlying reason is that leftists believe in historical progress. Thus they think that anything from the past that validates their view is to be valued as contributing to progress and anything that doesn't discarded as a remnant of a more backward time and culture.
>This view insulates them from any critique originating in an author from a previous time. They see no need to address his thought as a logically coherent body. They easily dismember it into parts yet like, and parts they don't.
THIS! bumping

You are utterly retarded. The left only uses emotional arguments and constantly talks about "how x will be remembered by future generations". Nietzsche is an antithesis to this train of thought. Just look up the poor/rich/good/bad man analogy Nietzsche made, it's a pure conservative mindset.

His sister only edited Will to Power.

Ayn Rand is the one true gospel.

the father of post modernism and voiding of absolute truth. I hope he burns

Which is why Christianity has a long history of supporting corporatist models, feudalism, a hierarchical church structure, innate differences and differing influences onto people outside of Protestantism which is the earliest expression of what would become liberalism.