>Christianity robbed us of the harvest of the culture of the ancient world, it later went on to rob us of the harvest of the culture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish cultural world of Spain, more closely related to us at bottom, speaking more directly to our senses and taste, than Greece and Rome, was trampled down (—I do not say by what kind of feet—): why? because it was noble, because it owed its origin to manly instincts, because it said Yes to life even in the rare and exquisite treasures of Moorish life!… Later on, the Crusaders fought against something they would have done better to lie down in the dust before—a culture compared with which even our nineteenth century may well think itself very impoverished and very ‘late.’—They wanted booty, to be sure: the Orient was rich…. But let us not be prejudiced! The Crusades—higher piracy, that is all! German knighthood, Viking Knighthood at bottom, was there in its element: the Church knew only too well what German knighthood can be had for…. The German knights, always the ‘Switzers’ of the Church, always in the service of all the bad instincts of the Church—but well paid…. That it is precisely with the aid of German swords, German blood and courage, that the Church has carried on its deadly war against everything noble on earth! A host of painful questions arises at this point. The German aristocracy is virtually missing in the history of higher culture: one can guess the reason…. Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.
Safe to say Nietzsche was the most profound philosopher who ever lived? You can't even comprehend him without reading him dozens of times.
Yeah, Jesus was all about the meek losers of the world, chastity, and people give their money to NEETs. Hell, monks were a bunch of voluntary celibate losers with autism who did nothing but sperg out about the bible and hate on normies and the rest of society.
Jesus started the original beta uprising
>You can't even comprehend him without reading him dozens of times.
FOR YOU. I get most first time, others twice, and yes some stuff is evidently beyond me, but he's not impenetrable at first.
Jesus' philosophy is more akin to socialism than it is of a beta uprising.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, is a jungle dwelling autismo who wants the world to be where the strong kill the weak if they so choose.
>Jesus' philosophy is more akin to socialism than it is of a beta uprising.
It's more like anarchic distributism. Jesus wouldn't have even begun to understand socialist rhetoric about industrialists, capitalists, and the one percent. Plus r9k is anarchistic in the sense that they want their NEET bux but don't want to work.
they're both blind with impotent rage. nietzsche is a glorified edgelord. a man of shit health and all kinds of social ineptitude talking about strength and power and societal order. that's not to say he wasn't a great philosopher but he had his flaws.
it's like DFW's endless quest and endless failure to be human, or whatever he thought that would / should be. i might read IJ and i might enjoy the elaborate quirkiness and the witty jokes but i'm not gonna take his This Is Water bs seriously since here we have a guy who amassed several hundred volumes of self help literature and then kurt cobained himself.
both couldnt see the forest for the trees. like the frogposters on r9k stuck in their precious echo chamber
>mfw people confuse the actions of people under the banner of Christ with the teachings of Christ
>mfw people always forget that Nietzsche admired true Christians
>mfw 20 something NEETs need to shit all over the foundation their society was built upon just to feel edgy and unique
nietzsche seems insightful at first, but he writes about how mercy is the prerogative of the strong, and only the weak want revenge,so then by his own standards christian mercy is the ultimate display of strength...the more life experience i get the more convinced i am that puritanical protestantism is the ultimate ideology as it encourages ascetism, but doesn't turn against material success in some catholic display of ressentiment, work hard, make money, but don't spend it being a degenerate...
>the foundation of western civilization is christian
>the foundation of western civilization is semitic
>tfw modern literature, humility and justice wouldn't exist in the west without semitic culture and values
>being mad about alcohol
what's the matter freddy? feeling a little resentful that your germanic countryfolk are gettin in it in with saucy maidens down at the local beergarten while u sit at home and fap to the greeks?
>civilization having a "foundation"
>the "Western civilization" meme
>historical analysis shows a correlation between civilisational progress and alcohol consumption
Most likely because the further civilization progresses, the greater the gap between the wealthy (minority) and the semi-wealthy and non-wealthy (i.e. majority), and the more stressful life becomes for the majority, hence increased alcohol consumption.
>compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a rich landowner and distributing wages how he chooses
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?"
- Matthew 20:15
Bullshit, there's implicit endorsement of private property in the Gospels through this parable.
That anon is correct, the furthest you could stretch it, even if you ignored Paul's epistles, is distributism.
Go peddle your resentment elsewhere.
The ethos of self-sacrifice brought bounties which you now scorn.
Christ was an Essene, and they abhorred private property. The first Christian society is described in Acts as having no private property.
I'm not saying Jesus favored some kind of revolution (because fighting over material wealth would make you just as bad), but he thought private property was generally a spiritual weight.
>mfw people always forget that Nietzsche admired true Christians
Yeah, but he also said the only true Christian was Jesus, i.e. the "teachings of Christ" as Christians know it aren't even fucking accurate to what Jesus taught.
Read the Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi Library. It opens with "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." as said by Jesus. He goes on to more or less regurgitate the Buddha and meant to lead you on the path to the realization that the fear of death can be overcome by reducing yourself (and you consist of your five senses, five in a House, five Trees in Paradise — "there is no organ for truth" as Nietzsche said) to utter simplicity of being and eradicating the divide between life and death in your world view; in other words life is an illusion. The original sin is the initial mistake of not knowing this when we are born and simply venturing into the world taking the illusion for granted. This thought process is essentially Buddhism, which has its foundation in Taoism — in the Tao Te Ching you can see that the "myriad things" is brought upon by our judgment but is an illusion and is not the "eternal Way."
The Kingdom of Heaven is inside you. Which means to get to it, you have to change yourself on the inside. It's not a place, certainly not a promised land. Afterlife was never promised by Jesus. In fact, he was almost directly saying that there is none. If he understood the teachings of Buddha, which it appears he did pretty well, then he understood there to be none, and the only way out of the Hell of the "myriad things" i.e. Legion is to softly kill the world (reduce your mind to a null state).
Christ wasn't an ascetic. John the Baptist was, but Christ wasn't. Christ ate fish and drank wine (which he was criticized for). He thought it was great being anointed by expensive oils.
Christ was strongly against possessiveness of property, but not against its use.
There are literally dozens of 'gospels' out there, all of them with various things said or not said.
You just like this one, and not, say, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, because of "muh buddhism."
Don't you just love when people suck the dick of things they don't have to actually deal with?
>This thing I have never actually dealt with is incredible
>if only we had taken up yadayada
His misreading of Islam is quite embarrassing. Muslims are weak and cunning, perhaps even moreso than the Jews. The vile resentment and hatred that he condemns the Jews for in the Genealogy are just as present in the saracen, particularly in their doctrine of taqiyya. There is nothing knightly about the muslim.
I'm still not convinced the taqiyya is anything other than "dude you can say you're not a muslim if they're out to get you it's ok", much less the worldwide islamic gonspiracy people on this site treat it like
moreover, he didn't grasp how life denying islamic asceticism by way of sharia is, he only thought islam was cool cuz european faggots used to go to north african and bugger little arab boys, nietzsche should have studied islam instead of hearing second hand tales of oriental faggotry...say...nietzche likes catholics, muslims and greeks...seem to be a theme of faggotry through all his favorite shit! the protestants and especially the puritans said no to taking dicks up the ass because that leads to disease and degeneracy, not earthly prosperity...man, the more you think about it the more nietzsche is a hypocritical little bich and martin luther and calvin have a more life affirming idea about life than any syphilitic shutin aka nietzsche
16:106 is usually cited by muslims as the sole ground for the doctine, and that indeed is confinded to denial of faith to protect your person or community. Unfortunately this assertion is itself a kind of taqiyya about taqiyya - I call it metataqiyya. Surah 3:28 is the Qur'anic grounds for the doctrine of taqiyya which they don't want you to know about, which I assure you is well established throughout classical Islamic jurisprudence. It preaches thorough deception of all non-muslims - never to be treated as authentic allies despite appearances - 'in prudence'.
>Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.
One of Mohammad's closest companions, Abu Darda, is reported to have boasted that 'we smile at some although we curse them in our hearts' - a statement reported by Al-Bukhari and repeated by Ibn Kathir in his respected commentary on this passage. He then reports that Al-Hasan similarly boasted that 'taqiyya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection'.
Never take a contemporary muslim's statement about the contents of their faith at face value. They are snakes.
The "we smile at them" statement was in reference to the period where the Muslims were being tortured and executed by the Meccans. Dissimulation was only permissible before jihad was declared. It's not part of jihad.
>The alphabets, Religion, Numbers
the aryans already had religion u fucking kike, and the jihadi pirates just ripped off the indo-aryans for their number system, and even if we never took the phoenician alphabet we would have developed a ideographic system like every other high iq culture on the planet, for all we know the west would have achieved even more if had used an east asian style writing system instead
>how does somebody who knows about the phoenician alphabet actually believe the west originated with the aryans. wtf
the majority of people populating the european continent are part of the proto-indo-european diaspora aka "the aryans", surely a tricky kike like u is already aware and only pretending to be stupid, or are you?
>"Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the Arab, the standard attained was wholly admirable; to [Islamic] Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers, and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of purist chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already you see the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so” - Adolph Hitler
Acquire any book on any of the four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence. I guarantee you will not even find the word taqiyya in any of them. Pick any language you like, pick any time period. You don't even find it in encyclopedic works like The Distinguished Jurist's Primer by Ibn Rushd. It is a non-existent topic in Sunni Islam. Even in Shi'ism it's only applied when they can't profess Shi'ism openly (btw, the existence of taqiyya is the reason there are so many blatantly secret Shi'ite sects, like the Druze, the Ismailis, or /pol/'s beloved Alawites).
Yeah all those great mathematicians and philosophers were eventually killed or run out because of shariah. Moreover Hitler was a hack and so was Thomas Carlyle who tried to revive this Mohamedist bullshit.
Martel was one of the greatest Europeans who ever lived, dare I say one of the greatest men.
>Yeah all those great mathematicians and philosophers were eventually killed or run out because of shariah.
Basically all those mathematicians and philosophers lived under royal patronage. They weren't some rogues living underground and getting killed when they got caught. They were part of the Caliph's court, living high on the hog. The closest thing to what you're saying is Ibn Rushd getting exiled, but that's an odd case. Ibn Sina, Al-Farabi, Al-Razi, Ibn Bajjah, and Ibn Tufail all lived under royal patronage and died natural deaths. The last two were viziers, for fuck's sake!
It's mostly dwelled on because of how different that is from Christianity, where denying Christ is considered something you never do, even if it meant dying. Muslims can't really have martyrs like Christians do because of this, so they call people who die in combat, martyrs, which of course Christians could never do because dying in combat is not martyrdom, even if you're defending the Church.
A Muslim is still considered a martyr if they are killed for not denying their faith, and that is actually considered better than dissimulating.
The first martyr in Islam is Sumayya, who was killed for refusing to deny Islam. There were others like Bilal and Suhayb who were tortured or beaten for refusing to renounce Islam. The option to deny the faith in order to escape death is considered a dispensation for weaker willed people, it's not something Muslims are commanded or required to do. In fact, the Koran says that remaining steadfast is better, even if you're killed.
But you know what I'm saying, there isn't a massive tradition of martyrs in Islam, and that is why Islam has to refer to people who died in combat as martyrs. The Emperor of Constantinople actually tired to pressure Christianity into doing this, to which he was told that killing people is always a sin, even in war--it might be understandable, but dying while doing it precludes you from being a martyr.
The Martyrs of Karbala were mostly non-combatants who were slaughtered by the Umayyad troops after the actual Battle of Karbala. Their status as martyrs is attested to by both Shi'ites and Sunnis.
There's also the martyrdom of the mystic al-Hallaj, which is eulogized in Sufi poetry in many Muslim countries.
And the status of combatant mortars is controversial in Christianity. Medieval Catholic works show that it was commonly asserted that Crusaders who died in battle were martyrs, though that does clash with certain earlier and later Catholic doctrine on martyrdom. Martin Luther on the other hand said that soldiers who fought fighting Turks were definitely martyrs.
The most important Koranic text on martyrdom is the Story of the Pit, which is about Yemenite Christians being forced into a burning trench by a Jewish king for refusing the renounce belief in Christ.
having to conform to social life makes it a lot harder to look at things and question the taboos; I would trust a social outcast to tell me the truth of the social order more than a normie.
He had some "strong influences" for sure - Aristotle's "Magnanimous Man", Emerson's essay "Self-reliance" and there are others I'm not sure about. It seems a bit much to say he was an unoriginal thinker, though even if he had a "magpie" sort of approach.