/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18103108]

The sick are man’s greatest danger; not the evil, not the “beasts of prey.” Those who are failures from the start, downtrodden, crushed—it is they, the weakest, who must undermine life among men, who call into question and poison most dangerously our trust in life, in man, and in ourselves. Where does one not encounter that veiled glance which burdens one with a profound sadness, that inward-turned glance of the born failure which betrays how such a man speaks to himself—that glance which is a sigh! “If only I were someone else,” sighs this glance: “but there is no hope of that. I am who I am: how could I ever get free of myself? And yet—I am sick of myself!”

[Anonymous No.18103110]

It is on such soil, on swampy ground, that every weed, every poisonous plant grows, always so small, so hidden, so false, so saccharine. Here the worms of vengefulness and rancor swarm; here the air stinks of secrets and concealment; here the web of the most malicious of all conspiracies is being spun constantly—the conspiracy of the suffering against the well-constituted and victorious, here the aspect of the victorious is hated. And what mendaciousness is employed to disguise that this hatred is hatred! What a display of grand words and postures, what an art of “honest” calumny! These failures: what noble eloquence flows from their lips! How much sugary, slimy, humble submissiveness swims in their eyes! What do they really want? At least to represent justice, love, wisdom, superiority—that is the ambition of the “lowest,” the sick. And how skillfull such an ambition makes them! Admire above all the forger’s skill with which the stamp of virtue, even the ring, the golden-sounding ring of virtue, is here counterfeited. They monopolize virtue, these weak, hopelessly sick people, there is no doubt of it: “we alone are the good and just,” they say, “we alone are homines bonae voluntatis.”

[Anonymous No.18103117]

>>18103108
sounds like a /lit/ post, is this walrus cosplayer supposed to be someone important?

[Anonymous No.18103120]

They walk among us as embodied reproaches, as warnings to us—as if health, well-constitutedness, strength, pride, and the sense of power were in themselves necessarily vicious things for which one must pay some day, and pay bitterly: how ready they themselves are at bottom to make one pay; how they crave to be hangmen. There is among them an abundance of the vengeful disguised as judges, who constantly bear the word “justice” in their mouths like poisonous spittle, always with pursed lips, always ready to spit upon all who are not discontented but go their way in good spirits. Nor is there lacking among them that most disgusting species of the vain, the mendacious failures whose aim is to appear as “beautiful souls” and who bring to market their deformed sensuality, wrapped up in verses and other swaddling clothes, as “purity of heart”: the species of moral masturbaters and “self-gratifiers.” The will of the weak to represent some form of superiority, their instinct for devious paths to tyranny over the healthy—where can it not be discovered, this will to power of the weakest!

[Anonymous No.18103129]

The sick woman especially: no one can excel her in the wiles to dominate, oppress, and tyrannize. The sick woman spares nothing, living or dead; she will dig up the most deeply buried things (the Bogos say: “woman is a hyena”).

Physiologically, too, science rests on the same foundation as the ascetic ideal: a certain impoverishment of life is a presupposition of both of them—the affects grown cool, the tempo of life slowed down, dialectics in place of instinct, seriousness imprinted on faces and gestures (seriousness, the most unmistakable sign of a labored metabolism, of struggling, laborious life). Observe the ages in the history of people when the scholar steps into the foreground: they are ages of exhaustion, often of evening and decline; overflowing energy, certainty of life and of the future, are things of the past. A predominance of mandarins always means something is wrong; so do the advent of democracy, international courts in place of war, equal rights for women, the religion of pity, and whatever other symptoms of declining life there are.

[Anonymous No.18103143]

Neetch was sick. And you posted this earlier.

[Anonymous No.18103155]

The trick is to realize he was talking about himself

[Anonymous No.18103243]

>>18103143
What about the Death of the Author?

[Anonymous No.18103267]

>>18103155
Reading Nietzsche and Kafka really sums up what Germany's little freakout actually was- the Jews integrated so well into Germany due to psychological similarities, and then the Germans realized how much they hated what they saw of themselves in the other.

Perfect amount of difference to highlight the hated similarities in themselves.

[Anonymous No.18103271]

>>18103243
In such a case as this, embarrassing in many ways, my view is—and it is a typical case—that one does best to separate an artist from his work, not taking him as seriously as his work. He is, after all, only the precondition of his work, the womb, the soil, sometimes the dung and manure on which, out of which, it grows—and therefore in most cases something one must forget if one is to enjoy the work itself. Insight into the origin of a work concerns the physiologists and vivisectionists of the spirit; never the aesthetic man, the artist!

[Anonymous No.18104285]

>>18103117
kek

[Anonymous No.18104361]

>>18103267
Kek, this.

Christians/Gentiles are Jews but noticably dumber so they can't even comprehend a worthwhile critique above the lesser of two evils dichotomy. Christianity was founded on the exaltation of weakness and passivity. Jews main tactic for success is exploitation of weaknesses. These two should have never been allowed in Europe.

[Anonymous No.18104644]

>>18103267
>>18104361
Nietzsche on Jews:

>Jewish, and subsequentlyto a greater degreeChristian, priests survived and attained power by siding with decadents, Nietzsche claims. They turned against the natural world. Their "instincts of ressentiment" against those who were wellconstituted led them to "invent an other world in which the acceptance of life appeared as the most evil and abominable thing imaginable."

>In order to survive, the Jewish priests made use of the decadents and their large population. The Jews were not decadents, themselvesthey are the "very opposite." Rather, according to Nietzsche, they have "the most powerful national will to live, that has ever appeared on earth." However, "they have simply been forced into appearing" as decadents, in order to "put themselves at the head of all décadent movements (for example, the Christianity of Paul), and so make of them something stronger than any party frankly saying Yes to life."

[Anonymous No.18104724]

>>18103143
Good thing he never told anyone to idolize him personally or take up a task that involved foregoing being themselves, then.

>>18103155
To a certain extent, yes:

>A long, all too long, series of years signifies recovery for me; unfortunately it also signifies relapse, decay, the periodicity of a kind of decadence. Need I say after all this that in questions of decadence I am experienced? I have spelled them forward and backward. Even that filigree art of grasping and comprehending in general, those fingers for nuances, that psychology of "looking around the corner," and whatever else is characteristic of me, was learned only then, is the true present of those days in which everything in me became subtler—observation itself as well as all organs of observation. Looking from the perspective of the sick toward healthier concepts and values and, conversely, looking again from the fullness and self-assurance of a rich life down into the secret work of the instinct of decadence—in this I have had the longest training, my truest experience; if in anything, I became master in this. Now I know how, have the know-how, to reverse perspectives: the first reason why a "revaluation of values" is perhaps possible for me alone.

>Apart from the fact that I am a decadent, I am also the opposite. My proof for this is, among other things, that I have always instinctively chosen the right means against wretched states; while the decadent typically chooses means that are disadvantageous for him. As summa summarum, I was healthy; as an angle, as a specialty, I was a decadent. The energy to choose absolute solitude and leave the life to which I had become accustomed; the insistence on not allowing myself any longer to be cared for, waited on, and doctored—that betrayed an absolute instinctive certainty about what was needed above all at that time. I took myself in hand, I made myself healthy again: the condition for this—every physiologist would admit that—is that one be healthy at bottom. A typically morbid being cannot become healthy, much less make itself healthy. For a typically healthy person, conversely, being sick can even become an energetic stimulus for life, for living more. This, in fact, is how that long period of sickness appears to me now: as it were, I discovered life anew, including myself; I tasted all good and even little things, as others cannot easily taste them—I turned my will to health, to life, into a philosophy. For it should be noted: it was during the years of my lowest vitality that I ceased to be a pessimist; the instinct of self-restoration forbade me a philosophy of poverty and discouragement.

[Anonymous No.18104745]

>>18104724
>What is it, fundamentally, that allows us to recognize who has turned out well? That a well-turned-out person pleases our senses, that he is carved from wood that is hard, delicate, and at the same time smells good. He has a taste only for what is good for him; his pleasure, his delight cease where the measure of what is good for him is transgressed. He guesses what remedies avail against what is harmful; he exploits bad accidents to his advantage; what does not kill him makes him stronger. Instinctively, he collects from everything he sees, hears, lives through, his sum: he is a principle of selection, he discards much. He is always in his own company, whether he associates with books, human beings, or landscapes: he honors by choosing, by admitting, by trusting. He reacts slowly to all kinds of stimuli, with that slowness which long caution and deliberate pride have bred in him: he examines the stimulus that approaches him, he is far from meeting it halfway. He believes neither in "misfortune" nor in "guilt": he comes to terms with himself, with others; he knows how to forget—he is strong enough; hence everything must turn out for his best. Well then, I am the opposite of a decadent, for I have just described myself.

[Anonymous No.18104796]

>>18104361
the Nazi's weren't a particularly Christian movement. I was more referring to their respective cultural "personalities"

[Anonymous No.18104840]

>>18103108
He’s clearly projecting and just talking about himself. “The inward turned glance of a born failure” literally he’s talking about his own retreat into the inner world of his own philosophy. I’m not saying he’s conscious enough to know he’s talking about himself but no one during his lifetime looked over at him and sighed “I wish I could be someone else.... man I wish I could be a bug eyed walrus invalid like THAT!”

[Anonymous No.18104860]

>>18104840
>I’m not saying he’s conscious enough to know he’s talking about himself
He was and then some, read the quotes posted above you. Although not everything the OP posted is in reference to himself.

[Anonymous No.18105281]

>>18104724
>>18104745
Very interesting quote - which book is it from?

[Anonymous No.18105448]

>>18105281
It's from Ecce Homo

[Anonymous No.18106721]

bump

[Anonymous No.18106997]

>>18103117
Yes

[Anonymous No.18107190]

>>18103155
Based

[Anonymous No.18107193]

>>18107190
and Nietzschepilled

[Anonymous No.18107278]

>>18103271
art is hedonism

[Anonymous No.18107336]

>>18103120
Neetch and Elliot Rodger were two sides of the same coin. They both saw the world in this falsely dualistic way, the only difference is Neetch decided he would “root for the Chads”

[Anonymous No.18107749]

>>18103108
Why would Teddy Roosevelt say something like this?
Wasn't he born with asthma or something like that?

[Anonymous No.18108519]

>>18107190
>>18107193
Contributan

[Anonymous No.18108537]

>>18103117
It's George Washington you fucking idiot, founder of the United States of America

[Anonymous No.18108612]

>>18103271
Let us put aside artists for the time being: their position in the world and against the world is far from sufficiently independent for their changing valuations as such to merit our attention! Down the ages, they have been the valets of a morality or philosophy or religion: quite apart from the fact that they were, unfortunately, often the all too-glib courtiers of their hangers-on and patrons and sycophants with a nose for old or indeed up and-coming forces. At the very least, they always need a defender, a support, an already established authority: artists never stand independently, being alone is against their deepest instincts.