p6VefRX5

1
2
3
4what does a misanthrope believe and how do they get this way?
5
6what do most misanthropes believe?
7
8
9------
10
11
12
13https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-famous-misanthropes-either-real-or-fictional
14Who are some famous misanthropes, either real or fictional?
15	11 Answers
16	Abhinav Maurya
17	Abhinav Maurya, PhD Student (Machine Learning, Public Policy) at CMU
18	Updated Jul 24, 2012 · Author has 540 answers and 1.4m answer views
19
20    Ludwig Wittgenstein: regarded to be one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century
21    Friedrich Nietzsche: another well-known philosopher
22    Martin Heidegger: philosopher
23    Søren Kierkegaard: philosopher
24    Jean-Paul Sartre: writer and philosopher; known to have said "Hell is other people."
25    Franz Kafka (author): highly regarded German writer
26    Oscar Wilde (author): well-known English writer; known to have said "Other people are quite dreadful. The only possible society is oneself."
27    Patricia Highsmith: American novelist and short-story writer whose works have been adapted into movies like Strangers On A Train (1951), The Talented Mr. Ripley (1955), Ripley's Game (1974) and Edith's Diary (1977).
28
29
30
31Nietzsche and Heidegger gets cited by them a lot
32
33
34Kierkegaard and Sartre? might have seen in that context
35
36
37they like Wilde
38
39
40	...The first person who comes to mind is Jonathan Swift, whose classic Gulliver's Travels is one of the finest, most brilliant satires on the human condition. In fact, as it progresses through Gulliver's adventures in Lilliput to his travails in the land of the Houynhnhms, his misanthropy is confirmed as it culminates in absolute disgust with the debased humans called the Yahoos. In a letter to another famous misanthrope, Alexander Pope, he is believed to have said,'I hate and detest that animal called man'
41
42
43Johnathan Swift
44
45Alexander Pope didnd't sound like that from his wiki page anyway
46
47
48someone says Nikola Tesla (they like him)
49
50
51	...George Carlin, one of the greatest stand up comedians who was never afraid to say things like they are. Even if he was wrong SOMETIMES, he was spot on a hell of a lot more. It's too bad he died way before his time, while many of the planet's worst scumbags are still alive today (and in hiding).
52
53
54reddit likes Carlin for some reason
55
56
57	...Sir Isaac Newton, it seems. The following article claims Newton was a "misanthrope" and a "loner": It wasn't just gravity that got Newton down...: A LITTLE HISTORY OF SCIENCE BY WILLIAM F. BYNUM 
58
59
60Issac Newton?
61
62
63	...Mark Twain, writer. Kurt Vonnegut, writer. Pat Robertson, preacher. Christopher Hitchens, writer. Jerry Falwell, preacher. (Most of the preachers do not refer to themselves as misanthropes, but many of us regard them as so
64
65
66Mark Twain is interesting, might be one of their agents (for reasons)
67
68
69Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell suspicious
70
71Christopher Hitchens
72
73
74	...Tao Yuanming, the Jin poet. He wrote many idyllic poems in solitude. One of his famous quotes is ‘I would not bow for five dous of rice’ (dou is a unit of weight in ancient China).
75
76
77
78	...Arthur Schopenhauer and Emil Cioran were known for their misanthropic outlooks.
79
80
81
82what useful info in studying this?
83
84
85the misanthropes that are exalted in media would probably make good recruiting tools
86
87like say "see everyone rescpects this guy and he hates humanity"
88
89
90there's a difference between hating humaiting and thinking it would be better with them gone than actually carrying that out...
91
92some of these are worse and creepier like Heidegger
93
94
95
96------
97
98https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy
99	Martin Heidegger has also been said[13] to show misanthropy in his concern of the "they"—the tendency of people to conform to one view, which no one has really thought through, but is just followed because, "they say so". 
100
101
102https://www.worldcat.org/title/reading-heideggers-black-notebooks-1931-1941/oclc/926820993
103	Reading Heidegger's Black Notebooks 1931-1941
104
105	"For more than forty years, the philosopher Martin Heidegger logged ideas and opinions in a series of notebooks, known as the "Black Notebooks" after the black oilcloth booklets into which he first transcribed his thoughts. In 2014, the notebooks from 1931-1941 were published, sparking immediate controversy. It has long been acknowledged that Heidegger was an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazi Party in the early 1930s. But the notebooks contain a number of anti-Semitic passages--often referring to the stereotype of "World Jewry"--written even after Heidegger became disenchanted with the Nazis themselves. Reactions from the scholarly community have ranged from dismissal of the significance of these passages to claims that the anti-Semitism in them contaminates all of Heidegger's work. This volume offers the first collection of responses by Heidegger scholars to the publication of the notebooks. In essays commissioned especially for the book, the contributors offer a wide range of views, addressing not only the issues of anti-Semitism and Nazism but also the broader questions that the Black Notebooks raise"--Jacket.  Read less 
106
107
108------
109
110
111Highsmith had rough childhood, was depressed and bit of an oddball
112
113she liked snails and brought them with her in her purse to a party
114
115
116comes off as one of the good guys. Until...
117
118
119
120https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Highsmith
121	When she was living in Switzerland in the 1980s, she used nearly 40 aliases when writing to various government bodies and newspapers deploring the state of Israel and the "influence" of the Jews.[65] Nevertheless, many of the women she became romantically involved with as well as friends she valued were Jewish,[60] such as Arthur Koestler, whom she met in October 1950[66] and with whom she had an unsuccessful affair designed to hide her homosexuality, believing that Marc Brandel's disclosure that she was homosexual would hurt her professionally.[67]
122
123
124
125https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler
126	Arthur Koestler, CBE (/ˈkɛstlər, ˈkɛslər/; German: [ˈkœstlɐ]; Hungarian: Kösztler Artúr; 5 September 1905 – 1 March 1983) was a Hungarian-British author and journalist. Koestler was born in Budapest and, apart from his early school years, was educated in Austria. In 1931 Koestler joined the Communist Party of Germany until, disillusioned by Stalinism, he resigned in 1938.
127
128	...In 1968 he was awarded the Sonning Prize "for [his] outstanding contribution to European culture" and in 1972 he was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE).
129
130
131Koestler involved in other weird things that might be worth looking into
132
133
134then there's this:
135
136
137https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Highsmith
138	In 1955, Highsmith wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley, a novel about Tom Ripley, a charming criminal who murders a rich man and steals his identity. Highsmith wrote four sequels: Ripley Under Ground (1970), Ripley's Game (1974), The Boy Who Followed Ripley (1980) and Ripley Under Water (1991), about Ripley's exploits as a con artist and serial killer who always gets away with his crimes. The series—collectively dubbed "The Ripliad"—are some of Highsmith's most popular works and have sold millions of copies worldwide.
139
140	The "suave, agreeable and utterly amoral" Ripley is Highsmith's most famous character, and has been critically acclaimed for being "both a likable character and a cold-blooded killer."[84] He has typically been regarded as "cultivated," a "dapper sociopath," and an "agreeable and urbane psychopath."[85]
141
142	Sam Jordison of The Guardian wrote, "It is near impossible, I would say, not to root for Tom Ripley. Not to like him. Not, on some level, to want him to win. Patricia Highsmith does a fine job of ensuring he wheedles his way into our sympathies."[86] Film critic Roger Ebert made a similar appraisal of the character in his review of Purple Noon, Rene Clement's 1960 film adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley: "Ripley is a criminal of intelligence and cunning who gets away with murder. He's charming and literate, and a monster. It's insidious, the way Highsmith seduces us into identifying with him and sharing his selfishness; Ripley believes that getting his own way is worth whatever price anyone else might have to pay. We all have a little of that in us."[87] Novelist Sarah Waters esteemed The Talented Mr. Ripley as the "one book I wish I'd written."[88]
143
144	The first three books of the "Ripley" series have been adapted into films five times. In 2015, The Hollywood Reporter announced that a group of production companies were planning a television series based on the novels.[89] The series is currently in development.[90]
145
146
147
148get people to think wealthy con-artists are cool?
149
150
151
152------
153
154
155https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/21/atheists-with-attitude
156	The felling of the World Trade Center in New York, on September 11, 2001, brought its share of religion. Two populist preachers, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, called it divine punishment (though both quickly withdrew their remarks)
157
158
159this is pretty weird
160
161
162	It’s possible to wonder, indeed, where plain speaking ends and misanthropy begins: Hitchens says that the earth sometimes seems to him to be “a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations.” He certainly likes to adopt the tone of a bemused Martian envoy hammering out a report for headquarters. (We hear of “a showbiz woman bizarrely known as Madonna.”) In a curious rhetorical tic, Hitchens regularly refers to people whom he wishes to ridicule by their zoological class. Thus the followers of Muhammad are “mammals,” as is the prophet himself, and so are the seventeenth-century false messiah Sabbatai Zevi and St. Francis of Assisi; Japan’s wartime Emperor Hirohito is a “ridiculously overrated mammal,” and Kim Il Sung, the father of North Korea’s current dictator, is a “ludicrous mammal.” Hitchens is trying to say that these people are mere fallible mortals; but his way of saying it makes him come across as rather an odd fish.
163
164
165anthony gottleib says Hitchens sounds like a martian
166
167whoever Gottleib is, I guess he though Hitchens went too far too...
168
169
170https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/books/review/dream-of-enlightenment-anthony-gottlieb.html
171
172Gottleib former executive director of "the economist"
173
174	...“The Dream of Reason,” the first volume in a history of Western philosophy by Anthony Gottlieb, a former executive editor of The Economist, appeared in 2000, and took us from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance. The new work starts with Descartes and ends on “the eve of the French Revolution.” 
175
176
177they like the French revolution I think because it was based on all the enlightenment ideas they don't like then went to shit and created war and dictatorship
178
179not sure about Gottleib except that he's into the stuff they are into
180
181https://twitter.com/n10egottlieb?lang=en
182
183https://twitter.com/nfergus/status/918449296596496384
184	 Anthony Gottlieb Retweeted
185	Niall Ferguson
186	‏Verified account @nfergus
187	12 Oct 2017
188
189	Anthony Gottlieb's thoughtful review of The Square and the Tower: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/12/the-square-and-the-tower-by-niall-ferguson-review …
190
191
192https://twitter.com/GuardianBooks/status/918364279631372288
193	 Anthony Gottlieb Retweeted
194	Guardian Books
195	‏Verified account @GuardianBooks
196	11 Oct 2017
197
198	The Square and the Tower by Niall Ferguson review – a new understanding of global history?
199
200chummy with Niall Ferguson?
201
202
203https://twitter.com/N10Egottlieb/status/828229341167366144	
204	Anthony Gottlieb
205	‏ @N10Egottlieb
206	5 Feb 2017
207
208	Philosophy of Wine seminar on the Principle of Sufficient Riesling
209
210
211https://twitter.com/N10Egottlieb/status/695369354565685248
212	Anthony Gottlieb
213	‏ @N10Egottlieb
214
215	Now that Bezos will hook one up, can Uber be far behind?
216
217
218	[Your package with Cocaine was delievered]
219
220
221this says it all
222
223he's one of them
224
225
226https://twitter.com/N10Egottlieb/status/665261788942979072
227	Anthony Gottlieb
228	‏ @N10Egottlieb
229	13 Nov 2015
230
231	"Polls don't take the pulse of democracy; they raise it." Wise and fascinating piece by Jill Lepore on polls http://goo.gl/07G4SN
232
233
234https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/667562395364143105
235	 Anthony Gottlieb Retweeted
236	Nate Silver
237	‏Verified account @NateSilver538
238	19 Nov 2015
239
240	About 25% of Americans identify as Republican. Donald Trump's getting about 25% of that 25% in the polls. Why is this impressive to people?
241
242
243
244is it unusual for him to be this interested in U.S. politics? from Nov 2015
245
246
247other things I guess is interested in according to his twitter: Brexit, theories that universe is simulation, jews, his own books
248
249
250
251https://twitter.com/N10Egottlieb/status/783718415366230016
252	Anthony Gottlieb
253	‏ @N10Egottlieb
254	5 Oct 2016
255
256	"Dozens of..myths get their comeuppance in this..fast-moving book," says Guardian:
257
258
259"Myth" as in Sally Marks "myth"?
260
261
262https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/05/dream-enlightenment-anthony-gottlieb-review
263	Gottlieb concludes with an affectionate portrait of David Hume, who, as he observes, has become the role-model of choice for philosophers in the 21st century. Hume was a “naturalist”, it seems, who took pleasure in presenting human beings as little more than animals with an inflated sense of their own importance. He also had an enviable talent for “disturbing the peace”, philosophically speaking. But his principal achievement was that he never took himself too seriously: he performed high-risk philosophical manoeuvres with unflagging good humour, and was always willing to concede that his hard-won theoretical convictions might turn out to be ridiculous foibles. If you are upset by abstract arguments, he said, then you should get out a bit more and engage with “common life”, and after a while you will be able to relax as you watch them all “vanish like smoke”.
264
265
266
267
268------
269
270
271Davide Hume misanthropic? Gottleib likes him anyway
272
273
274http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/05/26/who-was-david-hume/
275	Who Was David Hume?
276	Anthony Gottlieb	
277
278	...As James Harris drily notes in his fine new biography, Hume’s private letters show that “he was not very good at being serious about religion.” His lack of piety and the decorously veiled attacks on theism in his published writings may play some part in his current academic popularity. Most professional philosophers today are atheists—73 percent of them, according to the 2009 survey. Perhaps Hume’s cheerful wit and enjoyment of life also help to make him a model for today’s philosophers, who do not like to think of themselves as unduly serious when off-duty. 
279
280
281if he's trying to to same thing as Hitchens he's right that he's better at it
282
283
284	...Still, it is probably the rise of so-called “naturalism” in philosophy that best explains Hume’s newfound appeal. Naturalism has several components, all of which were prominent in his work. Hume stressed the similarities between people and other animals: a century before Darwin’s Descent of Man, he argued that there is no great difference between the minds of humans and the minds of some creatures in zoos. (Hume also anticipated Darwin in implying that certain mental traits function to aid reproduction.) He treated religion as a natural phenomenon, to be explained in psychological and historical terms—which tended to annoy the pious—and he argued that the study of the mind and of morals should be pursued by the same empirical methods that were starting to cast new light on the rest of nature. Philosophy, for Hume, was thus not fundamentally different from science. This outlook is much more common in our time than it was in his.
285
286	Philosophers now regard Hume’s account of reason not as a mischievous plot to undermine it but as an attempt to explain how it works. As Harris puts the matter, he was developing “an entirely new theory of rationality.” Hume treats humans as clever animals whose beliefs about most things are based on “custom,” in the form of a propensity to expect the future to resemble the past—a propensity, he argued, that is essential for the conduct of life, but cannot be provided with any sort of independent justification. This thesis has come to be known as “the problem of induction,” though Hume himself did not regard it as presenting much of a problem. He played up the importance of what he called “experimental” or “probable” reasoning in human knowledge, and played down the significance of mathematical and quasi-mathematical deductions. This was a considerable novelty after some two thousand years in which philosophers, still enthralled by Greek geometry, had mostly done the opposite. Hume’s emphasis on the sort of empirical and fallible beliefs that humans share with some lesser creatures was all too easily interpreted as a denigration of the powers of the human mind.
287
288
289Hume was early thinker to say Humans are like animals
290
291Gottleib points to him being kindof rebel or persecuted for that
292
293
294	...Hume’s life may therefore seem to have been a drama in two very different acts. In the first, he tried unsuccessfully to make his mark in philosophy. In the second, he produced lighter works in order to make money and become famous. Hume the philosopher thus became Hume the popular historian and essayist.
295
296
297can see why Gottleib likes him
298
299
300	...This was an exaggeration. Not only had the Treatise been fairly widely and promptly reviewed, but the zealots murmured against it loudly enough for him to issue an anonymous pamphlet defending it against various charges. These charges were, among other things, that the Treatise advocated “Universal Scepticism,” and that it sapped “the Foundations of Morality, by denying the natural and essential Difference betwixt Right and Wrong,” all of which sounded rather impious.
301
302
303in Gottleibs account, Hume was persecuted for his bold questioning of morality
304
305
306	...The Treatise had itself been published anonymously, which was not unusual for controversial works by new authors. It was no real secret who had written it, though. Anonymity in such cases was as much a conventional expression of modesty as an attempt to escape the consequences of censure. But the first time Hume acknowledged in print that he was in fact the author of the Treatise was when he emphatically disowned it as juvenilia. Almost as soon as he had published it, Hume rued the fact that he had rushed into print too early. He omitted the Treatise from editions of his collected writings and begged the public to judge him only by his other works.
307
308
309actually is kindof sad
310
311I think they would like this story though for recruiting, true or otherwise
312
313the story of a bold genius questioning religion and morality and getting persecuted by the raving masses who don't understand his genius
314
315so can use for:
316
317- appeal to arrogance
318
319- religious people equated with moral people and used as prop to turn recruits off both
320
321- I guess argue that moral people (most people) are stupid? or just in general make it easier to hate them. Introduce a misantrhopic disposition and worldview.
322
323
324reminds me of the story of hypahtia and the Christians that Zeilinski liked (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hypatia-ancient-alexandrias-great-female-scholar-10942888/)
325
326
327	...Far from being a watered-down presentation of his fundamental ideas, the new essays were in several respects bolder than the Treatise. For one thing, they made the antireligious implications of his thought more explicit, though they did so with tact. Hume included in the essays a discussion of miracles that he had omitted from the Treatise. This discussion drew on his analysis of probabilistic reasoning to argue that reports of religious miracles should always be disbelieved. He also argued that the ever-popular “design argument,” which infers the existence of God from apparent signs of intelligent design in nature, jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
328
329	As always, Hume presented his impious ideas as if they were directed only against “false religion,” not the vague “true religion” to which, for the sake of decorum, he feigned adherence. The enemy, he pretended, was superstition and “enthusiasm”—that is, zealotry—not religious faith itself. 
330
331
332is that true he was pretending?
333
334article comes off as co-opting a bit, doubtful hume an agent of theirs
335
336
337according to wiki at least Hume questioned, theres a debate on his religious views but don't say he was "feigning adherence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Religious_views
338
339
340	...Another British visitor to d’Holbach’s salon, Hume’s young admirer Edward Gibbon, reported that they “laughed at the scepticism of Hume,” though this seems to have been a good-tempered affair. By “scepticism” Gibbon meant what would now be called “agnosticism.” The principles of Hume’s philosophy implied that the question of God’s existence cannot be settled definitively either way, so he was in one sense an agnostic. However, since he does not seem to have entertained any belief in God, it is probably also fair to call him an atheist—just not a campaigning one.
341
342
343	...The manuscript was indeed so artfully written that people who are unfamiliar with eighteenth-century conventions of “theological lying,” as it has been called, still sometimes think that Hume ended up endorsing the idea that design in nature points to the existence of a God.*
344
345
346a little off
347
348could be that Gottleib really likes Hume and also really dislikes religion so is conflicted
349
350"theological lying" thing suspicious
351
352its like this:
353
354some of the dumbest, most contemptable people in history and modern times have been supersticious, hypocritical christians
355
356this by most accounts appears to be an important recruiting tool, kindof like christianity (or some version of it) is to their ideology as HUAC is to communists
357
358so if it turns out that some philospher that they respect also had christian or religious beliefs (unremarkable given how popular it was), that's damaging to their narrative that religion (equated with moralty) = dumb and athiesm and amorality = smart.
359
360
361Gottleib called out Patt Robensen and Fallwell for the 9/11 thing while calling out Hitchens for sounding like a martian. If he understands Robenson and Fallwel as spies that colors what he says here.
362
363
364
365https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/05/dream-enlightenment-anthony-gottlieb-review
366	...After a while, the jovial put-downs start to sound mean-spirited. It is fine to be diffident about one’s own powers, but there is something sneaky about being diffident on behalf of others, and Gottlieb risks undermining his defence of the great philosophers by depicting them as incorrigible fantasists, lost in their dreams of reason and enlightenment.
367
368
369Gottleib emphasizes that in his write-up of Hume too, like that humans are like animals and human reasoning not different from passion
370
371
372------
373
374
375https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
376	Christopher Eric Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was an Anglo-American[9] author, columnist, essayist, orator, religious and literary critic, social critic, and journalist. Hitchens was the author, co-author, editor or co-editor of over 30 books, including five collections of essays on culture, politics and literature. A staple of public discourse, his confrontational style of debate made him both a lauded intellectual and a controversial public figure. He contributed to New Statesman, The Nation, The Weekly Standard, The Atlantic, London Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, Slate, Free Inquiry and Vanity Fair.
377
378	Having long described himself as a social democrat, a Marxist and an anti-totalitarian, he began to break with the established political left after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the Western left to the Satanic Verses controversy, followed by the left's embrace of Bill Clinton and the antiwar movement's opposition to NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. His support of the Iraq War separated him further. His writings include critiques of public figures such as Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa and Diana, Princess of Wales. He was the elder brother of the conservative journalist and author Peter Hitchens.
379
380
381kinda all over the place
382
383marxist then pro-iraq war
384
385but against NATO in Bosnia 
386
387attacks kissinger
388
389
390brother Peter Hitches was in "international socialists" and a moscow correspondant
391
392
393	...In the 1960s, Hitchens joined the political left, drawn by disagreement over the Vietnam War, nuclear weapons, racism, and oligarchy, including that of "the unaccountable corporation." He expressed affinity with the politically charged countercultural and protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s. He avoided the recreational drug use of the time, saying "in my cohort we were slightly anti-hedonistic...it made it very much easier for police provocation to occur, because the planting of drugs was something that happened to almost everyone one knew."[21] Hitchens was inspired to become a journalist after reading a piece by James Cameron.[18]
394
395	Hitchens joined the Labour Party in 1965, but along with the majority of the Labour students' organisation was expelled in 1967, because of what Hitchens called "Prime Minister Harold Wilson's contemptible support for the war in Vietnam".[22] Under the influence of Peter Sedgwick, who translated the writings of Russian revolutionary and Soviet dissident Victor Serge, Hitchens forged an ideological interest in Trotskyism and anti-Stalinist socialism.[16] Shortly after he joined "a small but growing post-Trotskyist Luxemburgist sect".[23]
396
397
398became trotskyist in 60's
399
400leaning toward him not being witting in any vast conspiracy, but maybe there could be people influencing him
401
402I think he had a fall from grace later
403
404
405	Journalistic career in the UK (1971–1981)
406
407	Hitchens began working as a correspondent for the magazine International Socialism,[24] published by the International Socialists, the forerunners of today's British Socialist Workers Party. This group was broadly Trotskyist, but differed from more orthodox Trotskyist groups in its refusal to defend communist states as "workers' states". Their slogan was "Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism".
408
409
410	...Around that time, the Friday lunches began, which were attended by writers including Clive James, Ian McEwan, Kingsley Amis, Terence Kilmartin, Robert Conquest, Al Alvarez, Peter Porter, Russell Davies and Mark Boxer. At the New Statesman Hitchens acquired a reputation as a left-winger, reporting internationally from areas of conflict such as Northern Ireland, Libya, and Iraq.[25]
411
412
413suspicious associations
414
415
416	In November 1973, Hitchens's mother committed suicide in Athens in a pact with her lover, a defrocked clergyman named Timothy Bryan.[16] The pair overdosed on sleeping pills in adjoining hotel rooms, and Bryan slashed his wrists in the bathtub. Hitchens flew alone to Athens to recover his mother's body, initially under the impression that his mother had been murdered.
417
418
419thought his mother was murdered
420
421
422goes on about his work as a journalist
423
424
425	...Hitchens met Carol Blue in Los Angeles in 1989 and they married in 1991. Hitchens called it love at first sight.[43] In 1999, as harsh critics of Clinton, Hitchens and Carol Blue submitted an affidavit to the trial managers of the Republican Party in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Therein they swore that their then-friend, Sidney Blumenthal, had described Monica Lewinsky as a stalker.
426
427
428involved in some active measures?
429
430
431	...Hitchens did not leave his position writing for The Nation until after the September 11 attacks, stating that he felt the magazine had arrived at a position "that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden."[53] The September 11 attacks "exhilarated" him, bringing into focus "a battle between everything I love and everything I hate" and strengthening his embrace of an interventionist foreign policy that challenged "fascism with an Islamic face."
432
433
434that's weird
435
436
437	...Hitchens was an antitheist, and said that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in God were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I'm trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion."[83] He often spoke against the Abrahamic religions. In a 2010 interview at New York Public Library, Hitchens stated that he was against infant circumcision. When asked by readers of The Independent (London) what he considered to be the "axis of evil", Hitchens replied "Christianity, Judaism, Islam—the three leading monotheisms."[84]
438
439
440that's a little much...
441
442does he do this on purpose or is that just his personality?
443
444sounds like a liar, it's weird for a left-wing marxist to support the Iraq war
445
446
447religious people can be used as a prop to make people misanthropic
448
449like sometimes believe in mystical things and look really stupid. At the same time they moralize and this tends to anger sociopaths.
450
451christopher hitchens comes off as taking this too far though, like he would damage this narrative and cause people to rethink it.
452
453
454
455
456https://books.google.com/books?id=8kgjU4wbM5oC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Hitchens+%22a+prison+colony+and+lunatic+asylum+that+is+employed+as+a+dumping+ground+by+far-off+and+superior+civilizations%22&source=bl&ots=nP9yvTwyyp&sig=LyHyxzhQ5jhRvBF3ec_xZlYAOeo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF06q01PvZAhVC1IMKHYXCD9AQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Hitchens%20%22a%20prison%20colony%20and%20lunatic%20asylum%20that%20is%20employed%20as%20a%20dumping%20ground%20by%20far-off%20and%20superior%20civilizations%22&f=false
457	...When the bones of prehistoric animals began to be discovered and scrutinized in the ninetheenth century, there were those who said that the fossils had been placed in the rock by god, in order to test our faith. This cannot be disproved. Nor can my own pet theory that, from the patterns of behavior that are observable, we may infer a design that makes planet earth, all unknown to us, a prison colony and lunatic asylum that is employed as a dumping ground by far-off and superior civilizations. However, I was educated by Sir Karl Popper to believe that a theory that is unfalsifiable to that extent is a weak one.
458
459
460in context comes off more like a joke
461
462seems proud he was student of Popper
463
464Popper's theoery that "an unfalisifiable theory is weak" has been proven false--in math there will be theorems that are true but cannot be proven
465
466Popper seems like he was a good guy
467
468weird things going on with him though? involved with socialists for a bit
469
470George Soros was also a student of Popper...
471
472
473
474...
475
476
477
478https://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/
479	Christopher Hitchens’ lies do atheism no favors
480
481
482
483someone else saying Hitchens went too far
484
485
486
487https://www.quora.com/What-was-Christopher-Hitchens-trying-to-say-with-his-last-words?share=1
488
489
490converted to American capitalism on his deathbed? (??)
491
492some quora comments are weird like they can't handle it
493
494something fishy going on
495
496
497shit
498
499Christopher Hitchens the Pat Robenson of athiesm?
500
501question of was this deliberate or not
502
503
504https://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/
505	And what of Hitchens himself? Where is his conscience when he knowingly falsifies the history of religious and philosophical ideas? Is he not himself an example of how conscience is about what suits one’s purposes? Personal ethics tend to reflect cultural ethics, and cultural ethics usually follow tribal interests. For Hitchens, too, has a tribe: the “reasonable,” the clean, the well-spoken, the “right sort,” the Oxford men, the ones who know and revel in their difference from the ignorant, the slaves, the Baptist rubes, the ones who don’t go to Cambridge and don’t eat good lunches. Hitchens was of the oligarchs and shared their most intense privilege: the right not to have to take seriously their own lies and misdeeds.
506
507	This is all debatable, of course, and a worthy debate it would be. What’s appalling is that none of this seems important to Hitchens. Our sense of “decency” is innate. Period. Have it your way, but I thought the truths you were interested in were based on evidence, and you have none.
508
509	As Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”
510
511
512https://www.quora.com/What-were-Christopher-Hitchens-biggest-flaws?share=1
513	In terms of personal judgment he was often too Manichean in outlook. Hitchens also let his judgment of character color everything else. He hated Clinton and Kissinger as people so his view of everything about them was purely negative. On the flip side, he felt Paul Wolfowitz was an honorable man and that led him to believe in a misbegotten cause like the Iraq War. Furthermore he was something of a romantic always looking for a great cause, a good versus evil conflict that he could take part in.
514
515
516honest about hating these people? they way he hates on people/things is impressive and comes off as genuine
517
518
519	...I read that he had a habit of being very rude to people, much to the embarrassment of those with him. In fact, I think I heard Martin Amis say in one interview that Hitchens actually enjoyed being rude to people.
520
521	One time, when he was very sick with cancer, he got into a taxi in Washington DC, I think with Ian McEwan, and upon finding out that the taxi driver did not know how to get to the natural history museum, he stormed out of the cab, saying in disgust to the driver that he shouldn't be in this country if he didn't know where the natural history museum was. They then got into another taxi, this time with a Hitchens-approved driver.
522
523	Another instance I read about was when he was in a Greek restaraunt in London having lunch with Martin Amis. They were sitting, eating at their table, when they noticed two entitled-looking upper class people at the doorway of the restaurant. Clearly they were going to ask hitchens and amis to move.
524
525	One of them came over to their table, crouched down, and pouting up to the two, said "you're going to hate us for this". Hitchens replied, in all seriousness - "we hate you already".
526
527	He had a sharp wit, and was rightly vicious to many of his opponents, but it's not going too far to say that being so rude to people for such trivial reasons was a character flaw of his.
528
529
530a theory:
531
532Hitchens was recruited as an agent (I think involved in active measures in Clinton thing, support for Iraq war, and brother comes off as a propagandist for them)
533
534but he wasn't always a good one (Gottleib rebuke) and was very angry, which he wasn't always good at hiding. Maybe his anger or disdain for certain people was his motivation
535
536
537this would mean its good to study him and get a sense of his disposition, since it could reflect ideas used to recruit other agents
538
539
540https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-find-Christopher-Hitchens-so-likeable?share=1
541	Why do I find Christopher Hitchens so likeable?
542
543	In all likelihood because he was saying something you were already inclined to agree with and was saying it with charm, wit, and more than a little righteous (or possibly self-righteous) anger that made your views seem important - gave you a justification for them you may not have possessed otherwise. He made your opinion feel like a crusade, a battle that needed to be fought. He made you feel a little bit superior to those people who thought differently or looked at things in a different way. He made you feel they were a little less than you.
544
545
546...
547
548
549http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/
550	This is a lightly edited transcript of the late Christopher Hitchens’ remarks at University of Toronto’s Hart House Debating Club in November 2006. The motion being debated was: “Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate.”
551
552
553	...It is very often forgotten that what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish-speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing President Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into this sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish-speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape.
554
555	In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish-speaking socialists, who were jailed by the excellent and over-praised judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, were the real fire fighters, were the ones who were shouting fire when there really was fire in a very crowded theatre, indeed.
556
557
558aren't those the guys who were trying to sabotage U.S. industry? I think one of them was caught for firing a bazooka at someone
559
560
561	...But before they do that, they must have taken, as I’m sure we all should, a short refresher course in the classic texts on this matter, which are: John Milton’s Areopagitica — “Areopagitica” being the great hill of Athens for discussion and free expression; Thomas Paine’s introduction to the Age of Reason; and I would say John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty.
562
563	In which it is variously said — I’ll be very daring and summarize all three of these great gentlemen of the great tradition of, especially, English liberty, in one go. What they say is, it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.
564
565	In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important — in fact, it would become even more important — that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.
566
567
568sounds honest in his support of free speech
569
570
571	In more modern times this has been put, I think, best by a personal heroine of mine, Rosa Luxemburg, who said the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.
572
573
574Rosa Luxemberg a "personal hero" of his
575
576
577	...It’s always worth establishing first principles. It’s always worth saying, what would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the earth is round? Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true. Here’s someone who says there’s no such thing, it’s all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think you’re bound to be okay, because you’re in the safely moral majority.
578
579
580Hitchens appreciates dissidents
581
582	
583	One of the proudest moments of my life, that’s to say, in the recent past, has been defending the British historian David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He didn’t actually say anything in Austria. He wasn’t even accused of saying anything. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law that says, “Only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Tyrolean Republic.”
584
585
586https://www.quora.com/Did-Christopher-Hitchens-enable-holocaust-denial
587	Did Christopher Hitchens enable holocaust denial?
588
589	I'm not sure what "enable" implies here, but even if Christopher Hitchens did not enable Holocaust denial, he certainly made an incredibly shoddy argument that David Irving's brand of Holocaust denial should be counted as legitimate. His defense of Irving gave him a sheen of honesty he certainly did not deserve.
590
591	Consider Hitchens's 1996 Vanity Fair article Hitler's Ghost.
592
593	Hitchens's argument boils down to this, Irving is the unseen, unwelcome opposite side to modern Holocaust historians:
594
595
596    [Daniel] Goldhagen [author of Hitler's Willing Executioners] is involved in an argument with an unseen opponent, and so are all the other experts on the platform, including Christopher Browning, whose book Ordinary Men anticipated Goldhagen by four years. This unseen opponent is David Irving, a British historian with depraved ideas about the whole narrative.
597
598	Don't let that "depraved" throw you off, it is just one of the many red herrings Hitchens so loved to toss about. Hitchens really thinks that Irving is a good historian:
599
600	    His [Irving's] studies of the Churchill-Roosevelt relationship, of the bombing of Dresden, of the campaigns of Rommel and others, are such that you can’t say you know the subject at all unless you have read them. And, incidentally, he has never and not once described the Holocaust as a “hoax.”
601
602
603	This is simply hyperbole: Irving would have to be a truly exception historian to range over such a breadth of subjects, each of which have been covered in exhaustive detail in many histories. And Irving is on record as describing the Holocaust as an "invention" so either Hitchens was either indulging in rhetorical tricks (surprise!) or was ignorant of the problems with Irving's scholarship. 
604
605
606this is weird
607
608I guess Hitchens right that he should have gone to prison
609
610but to say that Irving was legit is weird
611
612
613https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
614	David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English Holocaust denier[1] 
615
616
617http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2017/09/david-irving-not-a-holocaust-denier-2469103.html
618	David Irving – Not a Holocaust Denier
619
620
621http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/12/the-demonization-of-david-irving-3452921.html
622	The Demonization of David Irving
623
624
625might be Hitchens added fuel to fire of active measures  
626
627
628https://www.quora.com/Did-Christopher-Hitchens-enable-holocaust-denial
629	Hitchens himself notes:
630
631	    I have caught David Irving out, just by my own researches, in one grossly anti-Jewish statement and one wildly paranoid hypothesis and several flagrant contradictions. But I learned a lot in the process of doing so. It’s unimportant to me that Irving is my political polar opposite. If I didn’t read my polar opposites, I’d be even stupider than I am.
632
633
634the article by Hitchens:
635
636https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1996/06/hitlers-ghost-christopher-hitchens
637	Harris could have added that his own brilliant book Selling Hitler—describing the 1983 forgery of “the Hitler Diaries,” which hoodwinked a large chunk of the British establishment (including historians of the caliber of Hugh Trevor-Roper, author of The Last Days of Hitler)—was made possible in part by Irving’s finding that those nasty papers were indeed a fake. Irving rendered another service by unmasking some spurious documents connecting Churchill and Mussolini. He speaks faultless German. He has, in the most recent case, been the first historian to see some 75,000 pages of diary entries by Joseph Goebbels, held in secrecy in Moscow from 1945 to 1992. His studies of the Churchill-Roosevelt relationship, of the bombing of Dresden, of the campaigns of Rommel and others, are such that you can’t say you know the subject at all unless you have read them. And, incidentally, he has never and not once described the Holocaust as “a hoax.”
638
639	I have caught David Irving out, just by my own researches, in one grossly anti-Jewish statement and one wildly paranoid hypothesis and several flagrant contradictions. But I learned a lot in the process of doing so.
640
641
642this is technically right
643
644can learn a lot from studying what these guys say
645
646
647
648	...There is, of course, another answer to the question I never asked. Goldhagen is involved in an argument with an unseen opponent, and so are all the other experts on the platform, including Christopher Browning, whose book Ordinary Men anticipated Goldhagen’s by four years. This unseen opponent is David Irving, a British historian with depraved ideas about the whole narrative.
649
650	...HITLER’S SPIN ARTIST was the headline on a typical column, by Frank Rich in The New York Times, raising the alarm about the mere idea of Irving’s being published. The Washington Post was not laggard, saying that Irving “routinely refers to the Holocaust as a hoax.” Jonathan Yardley, a cultural critic of some standing, wrote a whole article that positively sighed with satisfaction at the idea that, having neither read nor seen the book, he could now safely counsel others to do likewise. Nary a voice was raised, in American publishing or academe or journalism, to ask if David Irving had anything to contribute as a chronicler.
651
652
653kindof reminds me of Milo Yiannapolis (this article from June 1996)
654
655
656can only guess what's going on with this kind of thing
657
658get people to hate freedom of speech by abusing it?
659
660
661http://flavorwire.com/599121/why-men-arent-funny-or-how-spectacularly-wrong-christopher-hitchens-was-about-women-and-comedy
662	This conflation of humor and sexual attraction was perhaps best — and by best I mean just the absolute worst — demonstrated in a much-derided Christopher Hitchens essay in Vanity Fair, “Why Women Aren’t Funny.” (Hitchens doesn’t get nearly enough credit as an early, model troll.)
663
664
665http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/
666	...Now, I don’t know how many of you don’t feel you’re grown up enough to decide this for yourselves, and think you need to be protected from David Irving’s edition of the Goebbels diaries, for example — out of which I learned more about the Third Reich than I had from studying Hugh Trevor-Roper and A.J.P. Taylor combined when I was at Oxford.
667
668	...Somebody said that antisemitism and Kristallnacht in Germany was the result of 10 years of Jew-baiting. Ten years?! You must be joking! It’s the result of two thousand years of Christianity, based on verse of one chapter of St. John’s Gospel, which led to a pogrom after every Easter sermon for hundreds of years, because it claims that the Jews demanded that blood of Christ be on the heads of themselves and all their children to the remotest generation [ed. note: actually Matthew 27:25, though John 18-19 belabors it].
669
670
671
672http://nymag.com/nymag/features/868/
673	The Boy Can't Help It 
674
675	..."I've been thinking of just turning up at Sidney's and walking in when they open the door for Elijah," Hitchens says. It's hard to tell for a moment whether he's joking or he's serious, since this shambling, tousle-haired British journalist, an agent provocateur columnist for Vanity Fair and The Nation, delights in the dramatic gesture, in impishly courting controversy. Then he adds, looking wistful, "I've decided it would be too theatrical."
676
677	It's been two months since Hitchens threw the grenade that bounced back to explode his own life. A week before the final vote of President Clinton's impeachment trial, Hitchens and his wife, Carol Blue, both left liberals, took the startling step of cooperating with House Republicans and ratting out their dear old friend Blumenthal. Both signed affidavits saying that the Clinton aide had told them over lunch that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker -- a smear that the White House had denied spreading.
678
679	...In the grand tradition of Washington enemies lists, Hitchens, too, is keeping score. He tells me he's furious at New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd for describing him as "snitchens" and a "canary." "That little cow," he fumes. "And I've always been fond of her." He's amazed, rightly so, at the venom of a series of unrelated personal attacks on his character: Edward J. Epstein charged Hitchens, in a widely circulated e-mail, of being a Holocaust denier. (He's not.) Alexander Cockburn implied in his own column that Hitchens makes drunken passes at male friends. ("I've certainly never tried to jump his bones," Hitchens says with a mischievous laugh.) L.A. Times columnist Bob Scheer even dragged up an old scandal, attacking Hitchens on TV for leaving his pregnant first wife, Eleni Meleagrou, for Blue.
680
681	But the worst insult of all? "The New York Times called me a 'Washington insider,' " he says in a tone of mock outrage. "Do you think I can sue them for libel?"
682
683	As he pauses to light one in a never-ending series of cigarettes -- making the point of telling me they're unfiltered -- it's clear he's putting on a show, with the intent to amuse. 
684
685
686https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5498172
687	Christopher Hitchens, Literary Agent Provocateur
688
689	...But he's best known for focusing his unforgiving pen on the likes of Henry Kissinger ("war criminal, liar without conscience, pseudo-scholar, pseudo-academic, pitiless sponsor of dictators abroad"); Mother Teresa ("friend of poverty, enemy of the poor, fundamentalist fanatic"); and Bill Clinton ("a man who was in politics for therapy who wasted eight years of America's time").
690
691	Despite the abundance of his copy, his prose usually sparkles, infuriates — or both. And though he objects to the label, he's often called a contrarian.
692
693	...Perhaps, long after Christopher Hitchens has gone, those with the luxury of reflection will judge him charitably. I have a feeling they will.
694
695
696sounds like the guy was a troll like Yiannapolis
697
698whatever his motive, whether this guy joined up in some secret organization or not, he seems like a pretty unique guy (besides comparison to Yiannapolis). Probably not representative of ideology used for recruitment.
699
700maybe thought religious people fun to troll
701
702some call him troll others really angry
703
704
705
706------
707
708
709http://philosophicalenmity.blogspot.com/
710
711
712
713------
714
715
716Peter Singer with arguments against humanity:
717
718https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/?_r=0
719
720	...The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.
721
722	Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.
723
724
725	...Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.
726
727	So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!
728
729	Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.
730
731
732	...I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
733
734	What do you think?
735
736
737this is pretty weird
738
739doesn't seem like anyone believes it?
740
741
742------
743
744
745https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/nietzsche-richard-spencer-alt-right-nazism
746	That’s how white nationalist leader Richard Spencer described his intellectual awakening to the Atlantic’s Graeme Wood last June. “Red-pilled” is a common alt-right term for that “eureka moment” one experiences upon confrontation with some dark and previously buried truth.
747
748	For Spencer and other alt-right enthusiasts of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, that dark truth goes something like this: All the modern pieties about race, peace, equality, justice, civility, universal suffrage — that’s all bullshit. These are constructs cooked up by human beings and later enshrined as eternal truths.
749
750	Nietzsche says the world is in constant flux, that there is no capital-T truth. He hated moral and social conventions because he thought they stifled the individual. In one of his most famous essays, The Genealogy of Morality, which Spencer credits with inspiring his awakening, Nietzsche tears down the intellectual justifications for Christian morality. He calls it a “slave morality” developed by peasants to subdue the strong. The experience of reading this was “shattering,” Spencer told Wood. It upended his “moral universe.”
751
752
753alt-right likes Nietzche and Spencer says upended his ideas
754
755
756	...Nietzsche made these same arguments more than 100 years ago. The story he tells in The Genealogy of Morality is that Christianity overturned classical Roman values like strength, will, and nobility of spirit. These were replaced with egalitarianism, community, humility, charity, and pity. Nietzsche saw this shift as the beginning of a grand democratic movement in Western civilization, one that championed the weak over the strong, the mass over the individual. 
757
758	The alt-right — or at least parts of the alt-right — are enamored of this strain of Nietzsche’s thought. The influential alt-right blog Alternative Right refers to Nietzsche as a great “visionary” and published an essay affirming his warnings about cultural decay.
759
760	...People often say that the Nazis loved Nietzsche, which is true. What’s less known is that Nietzsche’s sister, who was in charge of his estate after he died, was a Nazi sympathizer who shamefully rearranged his remaining notes to produce a final book, The Will to Power, that embraced Nazi ideology. It won her the favor of Hitler, but it was a terrible disservice to her brother’s legacy.
761
762	Nietzsche regularly denounced anti-Semitism and even had a falling-out with his friend Richard Wagner, the proto-fascist composer, on account of Wagner’s rabid anti-Semitism. Nietzsche also condemned the “blood and soil” politics of Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman who unified Germany in 1871, for cementing his power by stoking nationalist resentments and appealing to racial purity.
763
764
765involved in wierd ways in rise of Nazis
766
767
768	Nietzsche as a mirror
769
770	Nietzsche liked to say that he “philosophized with a hammer.” For someone on the margins, stewing in their own hate or alienation or boredom, his books are a blast of dynamite. All that disillusionment suddenly seems profound, like you just stumbled upon a secret that justifies your condition. 
771
772
773author know something?
774
775
776...
777
778
779https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
780	...One of the most powerful impressions on me after reading Spinks was just how pervasive Nietzsche’s ideas have become, woven into the most unlikely commonplaces, like television drama, art critique, literature, political debate, and even advertising, but mostly without explicitly acknowledging that parentage. This pervasiveness makes it easy to respond to direct contact with his unadulterated ideas with an indifferent shoulder shrug. Until it is recalled he originated these now normalised concepts when they might have been seen as revolutionary, and that his ideas have become enormously influential despite a common, naïve condemnation of his work as ideological justification for fascist excesses.
781
782
783	...Another powerful impression on me now is that Nietzsche never wrote a definitive work, nor did he develop a cohesive set of principles. Instead he iteratively re-visited the same themes and concerns over a lifetime, amending and refining his conceptions in a process of continuous bringing-into-being that ceased when his sanity gave out, leaving us with an interrupted work in progress. I see it as more difficult than with some other writers to nail Nietzsche down on any specific proposition. That is particularly the case because he changed his expository style too, moving from the conventional form of narrative essay to an increasingly lyrical, poetic prose that requires significant effort to inculcate and evaluate.
784
785	His iterative style also presents an expository difficulty. Many of his ideas are tightly interwoven, and explaining one relies on understanding another. Yet not even an unconventional narrative structure can explain all his ideas at once, and this narrative settles for an artificial sequence, based on the chronology of Spinks’s book. In doing so, though, it is worth remembering that almost none of Nietzsche’s major ideas can be well understood in isolation from the others.
786
787
788If Nietzche hard to read, confusing, and considered evil, how did he get so influential?
789
790
791	...For further clues on Nietzsche’s unfinished oeuvre, I think, you can look at Schopenhauer behind him, Kierkegaard running in parallel, and Camus with Sartre in his future. 
792
793
794	...He was a child during the revolutionary period that swept continental Europe in 1848, in which Richard Wagner played some part. The revolutionary tide was aimed at overturning an old aristocratic order. The tide created the second French republic, but failed to gain a foothold in the German states, where the aristocrats forced many of the revolutionaries into exile. Wagner and the legacy of the failed revolutions were to leave an impression on Nietzsche that I suspect strongly informed his hostility to Christian conservative orthodoxy.
795
796	In an Austrian-dominated German Confederation, Christian meant predominantly Catholic orthodoxy, creating internal tensions between North and South, with the North being more heavily Protestant, and Nietzsche himself belonging to that North.
797
798
799author suspects Catholic-Christian tensions influenced Nietzche's hostility to Christians
800
801
802	...It is my further speculation that psychologically Nietzsche may have been a prodigy, but tending towards sociopathy, and later on, towards megalomania, regarding himself as a kind of prophet of a new era. This is an essentially personal response, based on a myriad small observations which might be summarised by looking the at the table to contents for Nietzsche’s autobiography, Ecce Homo, which he lists the first three chapters as ‘Why I Am So Wise’, ‘Why I Am So Clever’, and ‘Why I Write Such Excellent Books’. 
803
804
805tended towards megalomania later (was this after some noticed his work?)
806
807
808	...His suggestions that self-control and asceticism might not be the virtues they were thought to be, and in fact harmful to the vitality of people and their cultures, is not likely to have endeared him with the Prussian martinets any more than the dour Lutherans or the Machiavellian Catholics in the Germany of his times.
809
810	Worse, he challenged the philological orthodoxy of historiographical cause-and-effect reasoning about social and cultural development, and an entrenched snobbery about Greek perfection in aesthetic and intellectual qualities. The controversy he caused may have been small, limited as it was to a narrow academic circle, but it appears to have been fierce and bitter. Former revolutionary and composer Richard Wagner took Nietzsche’s side in the ensuing public exchange of vitriol. The friendship based on that skirmishing probably injected into Nietzsche’s outlook the influence of the 1840s revolutionary idealism, even if the two men fell out in the 1870s, not least because Wagner became an anti-Semitic Christian.
811
812
813Nietzche was controversial but Wagner took his side and befriended him until 1870s when he became "anti-Semitic Christian"
814
815	
816	Looking back on Birth of Tragedy today, it seems to me that the most interesting insight arising from it is Nietzsche’s prescient critique of how Greek culture and society was weakened as the emphasis of its performance art shifted from the universal and grand to the individual and banal. Today we might liken this to the contemporary arts having largely abandoned any grand vision for human purposes in favour of a focus on the petty, neurotic ineffectiveness of individuals obsessed with the insipid. Most sit coms, but especially reality television, celebrate an execrable focus on stunningly ineffective, embarrassingly stupid people pursuing solely banal objects. Big-budget Hollywood shoot-em-up ‘blockbusters’ can be seen as vicarious reactions to a similar ineffectiveness, portrayed as powerlessness against two-dimensional ‘bad guys’. Pop music seems similarly obsessed with a unitary focus, albeit on a narcissistic, onanistic obsession with sexuality as social currency. Worst of all, the fourth estate has become a circus freak show, emphasising fear, scandal, and Schadenfreude as perverse titillation for a bourgeoisie with a need to find self-affirmation for its morally vacuous pettiness in being able to self-righteously disapprove of the ethical deficiencies in others.
817
818	It would be easy to make an argument along Nietzschean lines that the culture which celebrates such mythification, and the societies that consume them, are weak and slavish rather than strong and vigorously independent.
819
820
821I guess Nietzche was the kind of guy who could get you to hate culture for being weak (author seems to get this)
822
823
824
825	...Nietzsche proposes that truth is a metaphor ‘invented to lend authority to particular forms of thought and styles’:
826
827    … Nietzsche simultaneously broadens his argument by claiming that all of the concepts we employ to represent the ‘true’ structure of the world — such as ‘space’, ‘time’, ‘identity’, ‘causality’ and ‘number’ — are metaphors we project on to the world to make it thinkable in human terms. What we call ‘pure’ truth is produced by the interchange of poetic figures — ‘concepts’ — whose origin in metaphor has been forgotten. (p.38.)
828
829	Much of what Nietzsche had to say about truth was a condemnation of religion, its ethics and constraints, and its effects on his society. Nevertheless, his arguments resonate because they have been re-cast many times after his death, most conspicuously in Marxist materialist critique, and the French existentialism that finally laid to rest any need to grapple with, or to reject religion at all, as having something to say about human consciousness and conscience. 
830
831
832Nietzsche thought truth was made up and condemmed constraints of ethnics on society while arguing that
833
834
835	...Spinks suggests that Nietzsche is not necessarily opposed to the metaphorical abstraction of reality into human truths, but rather to the forgetfulness that these are abstractions, not literal truths, and the human tendency to allow metaphors to ‘ossify’ into rigid doctrines (p. 43). Nietzsche’s fear in all of this is that such confected truths serve as the justification for mediocre people to overturn the rightful authority of their superiors.
836
837
838kindof like this:
839
840
841http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf
842	12. Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.    
843
844	13. Where does right begin? Where does it end?    
845
846	14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.
847
848
849https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
850	...In some senses other frameworks for critical thinking have displaced Nietzsche’s critique of truth, particularly Marxist and post-Marxist materialist approaches that follow the trail of money to illuminate what kind of interests are being represented in transactional discourses. The reason Nietzsche has been thus displaced could well be that he was wilfully disdainful of existential priorities; he doesn’t seem to care about social cohesion, economic boundary conditions, inevitable legal constraints, and, to a large degree, the psychology of ostracism associated with challenging orthodoxy. That tendency is not just an indicator of sociopathy as discussed above, but could be a signpost that Nietzsche’s intention was not to prescribe a manifesto for action by the masses so much as to address an imagined elite, fit to rule over the masses by the merit of intellectual superiority.
851
852
853author postis Nietzsche addressing some sociopathic elite because he was disdainful of legal constraints and social cohesion and other things (?)
854
855
856sounds like he's onto something:
857
858https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book)
859	Nietzsche claimed in the Foreword to have written the book for a very limited readership. In order to understand the book, he asserted that the reader "... must be honest in intellectual matters to the point of hardness to so much as endure my seriousness, my passion."[3] The reader should be above politics and nationalism. Also, the usefulness or harmfulness of truth should not be a concern. Characteristics such as "Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage for the forbidden"[3] are also needed. He disdained all other readers.[4]
860
861
862hehe ok this says a lot about him...
863
864
865https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
866	...Morality
867
868	I have read nothing in Nietzsche that rejects ethics or ethical behaviour. When he talks of a master perspective as pre-moral, all he says is that it is a position from which an original, authentic analysis is possible, the way it is not under the ‘slave’ mentality of having already and uncritically absorbed an existing moral code, together with its prescriptions for human ends. He regarded the latter as servitude by those who obey, to those who are served by that obedience. It is individual and independent critical analysis Nietzsche calls for, and whose lack he laments, when he condemns uncritical, self-effacing obedience of imposed ethics.
869
870
871in author's account, Nietzche said that "masters" haven't blindly adopted "slave mentality" of morality yet
872
873
874https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
875	Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: 'Master morality' and 'Slave morality'. Master morality values pride, strength, and nobility, while slave morality values things like kindness, humility, and sympathy. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences (i.e. classical virtues and vices, consequentialism), unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions (e.g. Christian virtues and vices, Kantian deontology).
876
877
878	...Nietzsche defined master morality as the morality of the strong-willed. Nietzsche criticizes the view, which he identifies with contemporary British ideology, that good is everything that is helpful, and bad is everything that is harmful. He argues proponents of this view have forgotten the origins of its values, and is based merely on a non-critical acceptance of habit: what is useful has always been defined as good, therefore usefulness is goodness as a value. He continues explaining, that in the prehistoric state, "the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences,"[1] but ultimately, "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena."[2] For strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong, and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid, and petty.
879
880
881
882so for him "good" = strong, "bad" = weak, "master" morality is calculating based on ends
883
884
885
886https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
887	I would go further to propose that obedience, without the freedom or power to consider and judge is not ethics at all, but a robotic parsing of a set of instructions. Unlike Nietzsche, though, I see no inevitable conflict between independent thinking and a rational acceptance of the compromise rules necessary for social groups to function: a modicum of externalised vérité, or honesty, to make it possible to trust or rely on people in everyday exchanges and agreements; a degree of predictability about norms, reactions, and restraints (pp. 63–65). But not the cretinous demands for policed thought made by religionists, lawyers, and populists. It is important here to mention that when I refer to religionists I include those who adhere to secular religions, like ideologies that assume and insist on a priori values.
888
889
890author says Nietszchie saw "inevitable conflict" between free thinking and accepting slave morality, but author disagrees.
891
892Author thinks conventional morality should be rationally accepted for social groups to function, but not to follow "policed thought" of "religionists, lawyers and populists" (how do lawyers and populists fit in here?)
893
894
895	...An underlying theme in Nietzsche’s work is an extended self-critique, or perhaps a critique of the orthodox academic wisdom of his era, specifically in his own field of philology. In that vein, a specific component of Nietzsche’s focus on genealogy is a concern to question the uses or utility of history. He probably accepted that the mark of an educated, civilised person is knowledge of history, and particularly that of the classical antiquity so idolised in the 19th century European academy (p. 75). But he questioned whether this knowledge didn’t turn into a kind of idolatry that kills off creativity and the capacity to invent a present not enslaved to the past.
896
897	...‘the meaning and function of historical institutions will be determined by those who impose their will on circumstances and organise events in order to advance their own interpretation of life’ 
898
899
900Nietzche thought knowledge of history could be stifling
901
902if propagandist historians bought into Nitzche's ideas of truth and history they could see it as justifying what they do (Herwig identified some pro-Nazi ones)
903
904
905	...As with so much else in Nietzsche’s thinking, this idea has been appropriate by post Marxists as dialectical materialism — a tool used to synthesise thesis with antithesis to reconcile what are thought to be contradictions inherent in the relations of production.
906
907
908a lot of Nietzche ideas incorrporated into marxist thought?
909
910
911	...It is possible I had internalised this Nietzschean warning to create a constant subconscious, but relentlessly nagging unease I felt during my recent master’s degree studies, giving rise to my persistent critiques: a sole focus on the asinine fantasy that science and mathematics offer an objective truth, capable of constructing a human future not chained to the mistakes of the past.
912
913
914author took Nietzchie to heart? but is also criticizing him and evaluating him in this article
915
916passage about "externalised vérité" makes it sound like author is a sociopath himself
917
918also dislikes technocrats and silicon valley, drops "perpetuate power structure" and "wall-street casino capitalism"
919
920author has read marxist stuff and I guess is exposed to all that and has thought of it
921
922
923	...Once we accept the historical constitution of historical ‘truth’, it becomes possible to see our values as an effect of the will to power of dominant social groupings such as the church, aristocracy or the ruling class. These values no longer appear ‘natural’ or ‘timeless’, but rather the consequence of violence, conflict and a struggle for authority between competing interpretations of life. The task for us now, Nietzsche insists, is to move beyond the exhausted and declining Judaeo-Christian vision of existence and create a new interpretation of life for the future. (p. 86.)
924
925
926
927https://roundersandrogues.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/nietzsche-and-truth/
928	...On the relativity of truth, Nietzsche said, “Only that which has no history can be defined.”  By that he means, because man-made concepts called “truths” are subject to interpretation, whether that be cultural, psychological, sexual, religious or insitutional, there is no way to determine any such notion of real truth.  Nietzsche believed that the perpetual interpretation and reinvention of conceptual originality, causes truth, in its original sense, to be obscured.  Like people, concepts of truth are in a constant state of becoming, which means they are relative to individual or societal understanding, which by their very nature, makes them in a certain sense, irrelevant and un-real.
929
930	...The other problem one must consider regarding truth is that our means of articulating these concepts, is our vocabulary, which is created by man, and is subject to man’s inherent interpretation.  These truths are the ideas of man, because the very function we use to communicate them, is also an idea of man.  Anything being created is subject to interpretation, and therefore can only be explained with a subjectivity that leans heavily on language.  In conclusion, since no two men necessarily can agree on the meaning of a word, and words can often mean different things to different people and cultures, then one has to accept how unlikely it is that man can also agree on a concept expressed as truth. 
931
932
933
934https://timlshort.com/2013/06/17/nietzsches-on-truth-and-lying-in-a-non-moral-sense-summary/
935	...1.  Deception and falsehood are ubiquitous and necessary in human existence.
936
937	...“the question as to which of these two perceptions of the world is quite meaningless, since this would require them to be measured by the criterion of the correct perspective
938
939	Perspectivism is Nietzsche’s important doctrine, developed in GM, that there is only truth from a perspective.
940
941	“It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against.  
942
943	Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.  The Will to Power, §481 (1883-1888)’’
944
945
946I think he's saying there's not "truth" except that imposed by institutions, people, culture
947
948I guess this philosophy would make it easier for propaganadists to swallow going out and lying about history, or lying about anything. Like they could tell themselves "well that's just the way of things" and "there is no truth anyway"
949
950did Nietzche impugn motive to truth? I think I've seen that before (maybe Marxist? like "all your history is just capitalist class forcing their ideas on you") that every explanation purporting to be truth is just someone with ulterior motives imposing their interpretation (roughly). I guess this would be the mindset of the propagandist and justifies doing propaganda.
951
952This would appeal to sociopaths, who might often findthemselves speaking not for the sake of truth but to get something.
953
954
955https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
956	Nietzsche reached in these considerations a metaphysical leap of faith that led him to propose a mode of life transcending morality altogether. An ‘aristocratic’ or ‘noble’ mode of thought that rejects values as proposed by others and determines its own will in a return to a pre-moral, life-affirming vitality in which all things are possible rather than governed by set rules.
957
958	Nietzsche next leap is to suggest that an internalised conscience, creating in people a sense of obligation to adhere to values at all, is essentially a commercial, transactional prerequisite that succeeds the power of an arbitrary exercise of force by the strong (pp. 67–70). Marx might have called this the relations of production, with a domination of capital over labour, and the systematic exploitation of labour to produce surplus value while preventing labour from recognising the exploitation as that, instead accepting it as a rigid, given social order.
959
960
961Neitzche and Lenin say similar things:
962
963
964https://espressostalinist.com/2013/08/11/v-i-lenin-on-communist-morality/
965	In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?
966
967	In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.
968
969	We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.
970
971	We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.
972
973
974I think Nietzsche saying that a conscience and morality is something imposed on the "slave" by "masters"?
975
976these days we know moral reasoning comes from a certain part of the brain, and its part that and part learning social norms. I guess Nietzsche thought morality was all learned and picked up from environment. For a sociopath, this is necessarily true since they don't have an innate conscience or one not working as strongly.
977
978
979https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
980	...It doesn’t help that he argued forcefully that ‘goodness’ and the restraint from violence were inventions by the weak to restrain the powerful as opposed to ‘an ideal and timeless standard of moral virtue’ (p. 65). He seems to rule out a civilised state of keeping civil strife at bay with rules that benefit the tribe. That Nietzsche did not more clearly spell out his intentions in making these assertions has assisted successive generations of totalitarians to misappropriate his ideas as literal commandments rather than as ideas to be discussed and contextualised in specific circumstances.
981
982
983
984author dislikes that Nietzsche "argued forcefully" that goodness was invented by weak to restrain the strong. Author sees ethical rules as keeping society together. He says Nietzsche's ideas helped totalitarians. 
985
986
987
988	...Christianity and bad conscience
989
990	Nietzsche’s conception is that punishment was originally an expression of immediate anger and the power to exert force. It then became an exchange convenience whereby essentially economic transactions were guaranteed by the threat of violent retribution for defaulting on promises. That arrangement acquired, over time, an ethical status as a moral good in itself.
991
992	The ultimate expression of this arbitrary, not in itself ‘good’ power to punish, Nietzsche argues, has been formalised in Christianity, which has extended the idea of a commercial debt, subject to settlement by payment or punishment, as inevitable and insoluble for all humans.
993
994
995
996Nietzsche has a history of ethics and punishment which is that it was invented to make business transactions work then evolved into Christianity
997
998I guess that helps assign a motive to ethics, rules, and Christianity, like "it's just there to keep you down, man"
999
1000this is familiar
1001
1002
1003	...That Nietzschean perspective has significant subversive consequences for a consideration of justice and law in in Western societies. It suggests that the law is not about administering justice or retribution, but about the particular way it is used under specific circumstances for the benefit of a distinct group of people. Spinks quotes Nietzsche thus:
1004
1005    … people think punishment has evolved for the purpose of punishing. But every purpose and use is just a sign that the will to power has achieved mastery over something less powerful, and has impressed upon it its own idea of a use function; and the whole history of a ‘thing’, an organ, a tradition can to this extent be a continuous chain of signs, continually revealing new interpretations and adaptations, the causes of which need not be connected even amongst themselves, but rather sometimes just follow and replace one another at random. (p. 72.)
1006
1007
1008also familiar
1009
1010saying law is just another form of exerting power, and I think this was used to argue mafia-style extortion no different from enforcing law (roughly)
1011
1012like here:
1013
1014
1015http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf
1016	4. What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?    
1017
1018	5. In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwords - to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1024	Spinks makes an aside that is nevertheless irresistible: was Nietzsche anti-democratic?
1025
1026	    The establishment of altruism as an absolute moral virtue also forms the basis for political movements like social democracy, which Nietzsche depicts as a conspiracy of the weak against those strong and noble natures capable of asserting their will to power and imposing their own values on the world. (p. 90.)
1027
1028	As I read him, though, Nietzsche would not be opposed to a much more rational conception for social democracy: that of maximising the capacity of its citizens to contribute towards noble ends if they were unconstrained by the depredations of grinding poverty, ignorance, illness, and the petty crime inherent in systems that abandon those without means to their own devices. 
1029
1030
1031
1032http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h45-ph4.htm
1033	Another writer opposed to democracy and materialism who was to have an influence on the twentieth century was Friedrich Nietzsche. He saw steps toward democracy as decay. Nietzsche despised liberalism as a "pig philosophy." Nietzsche was skeptical about claims that good times were ahead, especially as influenced by public opinion. He despised mediocrity and the masses. Liberalism, he believed, led to revolution, bloodletting and crime. 
1034
1035
1036
1037http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf
1038	...    26. In all corners of the earth the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm.
1039
1040    And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the GOYIM, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the GOYA States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card - the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the GOYIM, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us.
1041
1042	...    20. The word "freedom" brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts.    
1043
1044
1045	...6. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance,and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.
1046
1047
1048	...	16. Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.
1049
1050
1051	...    13. We have demonstrated that progress will bring all the GOYIM to the sovereignty of reason. Our despotism will be precisely that; for it will know how, by wise severities, to pacificate all unrest, to cauterize liberalism out of all institutions.    
1052
1053
1054I see a pattern here
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1060	...That said, I nevertheless see very clearly how accurate Nietzsche was in condemning the association of ‘virtue’ with ‘pity and selflessness’ (p. 90) when I look at all forms of political correctness, and the rise of a victim culture, or the ‘a cult of pity’ (p. 91) which effectively outlaws words, phrases, and behaviours inan attempt at socially engineering obedience. The pity-virtue mind-set leads to witch-hunts against individuals as readily as does totalitarianism, as has been demonstrated quite recently on American and British university campuses with ‘demonstrations’ against all manner of vigorous debate of tough questions.
1061
1062
1063I guess both author and Neitzche dislike "PC thought police"
1064
1065kinda relates to most people being uncomfortable talking about certain things, and sociopaths tending to not having that quality, and I guess they cite this as a reason to feel superior to most people.
1066
1067so the whole PC and "safe space" propaganda could just be something to make themselves feel better, like they need someone to feel superior too so they created someone
1068
1069maybe they see it as a recuirting tool
1070
1071reaction to PC pushes people to alt-right, and I guess eventually to a Nietzchie mindset
1072
1073
1074	Spinks observes:
1075
1076    … the morality of pity is not selfless but rather embodies a weak and reactive will to power intended to subordinate the strong to the weak and preserve a degenerating form of life. For the feeling of pity always involves a degree of contempt for the person pitied; and this pleasurable experience of superiority enables the ‘altruistic’ individual to believe itself more powerful than before. (pp.90–91.)
1077
1078
1079maybe Neitzche was upset at people calling him out for not showing sympahty to others
1080
1081
1082	...Aristocratic values
1083
1084	There is in Nietzsche an undisputable admiration for elitism. This may be a reflection of Nietzsche’s own narcissism, or of his Germanic romanticism (adherence to which he would have denied).
1085
1086	Nietzsche sees a division among men (where that term is the German gender-neutral ‘Mensch’) defined as the difference between aristocratic or noble mentalities on the one hand, determining their own values and purposes independently of tradition, law, or peer approval, and slave mentalities on the other hand, defined by their envious subversion and subjugation of their betters with morality and law (pp. 92–93) justifying and reinforcing their solely reactive natures, and yet incapable of any real creativity or innovation (p. 95).
1087
1088
1089Nietzsche saw two classes, noble and slave, where "slave" held back superior people with morality and law, while "noble" could think outside that and come up with their own way of doing things
1090
1091I think he's describing difference between neurotypical and sociopath but assigning values to their tendencies. Like he sees all these differences and concludes that soicopath is better and has all these reasons to argue that.
1092
1093Machiavelli was similar, saying there were two classes of "princes" and everybody else, and assumed the business of the prince was to grab power and wrote his theories of how to best do that.
1094
1095If Neitzche were a sociopath and I guess spent a lot of his time succesfully manipulating people around him, that would make it easier to conclude these people are inferior and like "slaves." It's hard to say how much of Nietzche's conclusions came from observing history or his interactions with people around him.
1096
1097Machiavelli I guess assumed that powerful people have no morals from looking at history (at least he concluded that it's better to be evil and feared if you want power)
1098
1099
1100	...But, as I have suggested before, I do not see this as a manifesto calling for superior people to dominate and enslave their inferiors. Nietzsche explicitly demanded that a mark of ‘nobility’ is not just a capacity to command and control, but also one for self-control and restraint from violence or domination where this is not required to attain independence from subjugation by the mediocre (p. 94).
1101
1102
1103from spinks:
1104
1105	Nietzsche is unequivocal that violence and domination are funda-
1106	mental to both the health of a noble society and to the development of
1107	a ‘higher existence’ (1990a: 193). An aristocratic society needs slavery
1108	‘in some sense’ because the generation of a pathos of distance between
1109	master and slave produces ‘ever higher, rarer, more remote, tenser,
1110	more comprehensive states’ and a type of ‘man’ who can overcome
1111	morality and live beyond good and evil (p. 192). Only this elevated type
1112	can endure the burden of ‘greatness’ which demands extraordinary self-
1113	discipline and the continual transformation of weakness into new states
1114	of hardness and strength.
1115
1116	...Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s great politics also leaves troubling
1117	questions in its wake. Is it possible to go ‘beyond’ morality (or good
1118	and evil) by moral exhortation? Why, in other words, should we follow
1119	Nietzsche’s example? To what extent can politics escape making
1120	moral claims upon us (Ansell-Pearson 1994: 154)? How do we relate
1121	Nietzsche’s immoral politics of domination to the idea of self-cultiva-
1122	tion and restraint, and what marks the point of transition between the
1123	two?
1124
1125	...This chapter examines one of Nietzsche’s most important and enigmatic
1126	formulations: will to power. Of all of Nietzsche’s terms, ‘will to power’
1127	is the one most closely associated with his name in the popular imagi-
1128	nation, where it is generally taken to describe a vision and a justification
1129	of life conceived as the violent domination of the weak by the strong.
1130	Like most clichés, this reading conceals a residue of truth, but it only
1131	highlights the most dramatic element of what Nietzsche claims to be an
1132	entirely new theory of life.
1133
1134
1135author and spinks in disagreement
1136
1137I guess Nietszche is saying elites need slavery to sharpen themselves into ubermenches
1138
1139
1140https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch09.htm
1141	257. EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance--that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type "man," the continued "self-surmounting of man," to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type "man"): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").
1142
1143	258. Corruption--as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts, and that the foundation of the emotions, called "life," is convulsed--is something radically different according to the organization in which it manifests itself. When, for instance, an aristocracy like that of France at the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral sentiments, it was corruption:--it was really only the closing act of the corruption which had existed for centuries, by virtue of which that aristocracy had abdicated step by step its lordly prerogatives and lowered itself to a FUNCTION of royalty (in the end even to its decoration and parade-dress). The essential thing, however, in a good and healthy aristocracy is that it should not regard itself as a function either of the kingship or the commonwealth, but as the SIGNIFICANCE and highest justification thereof--that it should therefore accept with a good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of individuals, who, FOR ITS SAKE, must be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to slaves and instruments. Its fundamental belief must be precisely that society is NOT allowed to exist for its own sake, but only as a foundation and scaffolding, by means of which a select class of beings may be able to elevate themselves to their higher duties, and in general to a higher EXISTENCE: like those sun- seeking climbing plants in Java--they are called Sipo Matador,-- which encircle an oak so long and so often with their arms, until at last, high above it, but supported by it, they can unfold their tops in the open light, and exhibit their happiness. 
1144
1145
1146I guess he's saying artistocrat sociopaths need to step on everyone else to become "more complete men"
1147
1148says the aristocracy has to sacrifice a lot of people, supress them and reduce them to slaves and instruments for its own sake. Socioety is not allowed to exist for its own sake, according to Neitzche, but exists for aristocrats to use them as scaffolding to become ubermenches.
1149
1150I think he's also saying class differences and looking down on the slave class helps the inspire the noble to want to elevate themselves even more
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1156	Ressentiment
1157
1158	Nietzsche’s use of the term ressentiment is difficult to simplify and pin down as an exact definition. Spinks offers the following:
1159
1160    	Where aristocratic values were bred from the experience of the natural plenitude and self sufficiency of the noble spirit, slavish life can only create a moral vision by saying ‘No’ to everything outside itself. Because slavish being is unable simply to affirm its own life and values, it is compelled to redirect the ‘evaluating glance’ of moral judgement outward on to a world it finds hostile and superior to itself (p. 21). Ressentiment describes the movement in which this reactive and resentful denial of higher life begins to create its own moral system and vision of the world. Slave morality is a form of moral recoil from life; it can only create a vision of existence by first projecting an ‘opposing, external world’ that represses the weak and vulnerable. Like every manifestation of ressentiment, slave morality ‘needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all — its action is basically a reaction’ (p. 22). [The page numbers inside the quotation refer to the 2000 Cambridge University Press edition of Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic.] (pp. 96–97.)
1161
1162
1163https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment
1164	(T)he problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has thought it out for himself, demands some conclusion. It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?" then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb."
1165	—Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality
1166
1167
1168I guess Nietszche sees morality as a jealous reaction to superior beings trying to get their ubermensch on
1169
1170I think Nietszche is saying "ressentiment" is the phenomenon of "slaves" being angry at "nobles" for dicking them over
1171
1172this is a little sly
1173
1174if sociopaths take Nietzche to heart, they are going to spend their lives stepping on people, and those people are going to be pissed and might come at them. Nietzche is putting an idea in their head that whenever this happens, it's an affirmation of the others weakness, so if and when the Nietzcheite gets knocked down they'll learn nothing and stay elitist.
1175
1176
1177https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1178	It is almost amusing how Nietzsche develops his argument. He says injustice is never found in ‘unequal rights’, but in claims for equal rights, because such rights are impossible to be defined according to any universal law rather than the imposition of demands based on envy, and that, as such, they resemble the ideologies of Christianity and anti-Semitism ‘which, he claims, develop “from weakness, from envy, from vengefulness”’ (p. 97).
1179
1180
1181Nietzche says there's no such thing as rights and asking for them is motivated by weakness and envy
1182
1183
1184	I find it irresistible to speculate whether much of what has passed as post-war conservatism is not in fact a kind of impotent reactionary longing for the imagined glories of a fictionalised past rather than a genuine concern to preserve institutions and practices whose utility is regarded not yet to have been diminished sufficiently to warrant their abandonment. In any case, such ineffective longing for an imagined (or real) vitality of the past fits precisely into Nietzsche’s critique about a weak or slave mentality unable to revitalise its thinking and circumstances the way a noble or aristocratic mentality can and does.
1185
1186	In those terms the kind of reactionary ‘conservatism’ entrenched into the Western polity by Reagan and Thatcher is properly defined as nihilistic ressentiment, sapping the vitality and creativity of Western civilisation as a whole, and sustainable for only as long as the declared and silent enemies of the West (radical Islam and remnant Stalinists) are even less effective.
1187
1188
1189author pins Reagan and Thatcher as being slave-mentality according to Nietzche
1190
1191what does that say about him? I guess he values some of Nietszchie's worldview, but uses it to justify left-wing viewpoitns (or at least attack right wing)
1192
1193weird I guess since Nietzchie was originally thought-leader for Nazis
1194
1195I think I read somehwere that there's a lot of different interpretations of Neitzche and debates about what he really meant
1196
1197
1198	...He suggests that free will is an invention, not an objective state of being (pp. 99–100). OK. I’m on board. For there to be free will, there must be an absence of coercion or negative consequences for giving form to will. The immediate objection has to be that such an absence might turn free will into the exercise of anti-social, criminal activities. Nietzsche went on to suggest that inventing free will permits the further artificial determination that any action is a freely chosen moral decision for which responsibility accrues.
1199
1200
1201http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nietzsche/
1202	Nietzsche vigorously attacks the "free will" of the theologians that is designed to make men "guilty" in the eyes of God. He sees man as "natural" as any other animal, and thus lacking the "free will" and "responsibility" invented by the theologians and philosophers to distinguish man from other animals.
1203
1204	    Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of "free will": we know only too well what it really is — the foulest of all theologians' artifices, aimed at making mankind "responsible" in their sense, that is, dependent upon them. Here I simply supply the psychology of all "making responsible."
1205	    (Twilight of the Idols, The Four Great Errors, 7)
1206
1207	    We have become more modest in every way. We no longer derive man from "the spirit" or "the deity"; we have placed him back among the animals....
1208
1209	    Descartes was the first to have dared, with admirable boldness, to understand the animal as machina: the whole of our physiology endeavors to prove this claim. And we are consistent enough not to except man, as Descartes still did: our knowledge of man today goes just as far as we understand him mechanistically. 
1210
1211
1212apparently Neizsche thinks free will is just an invention by the slave class so they can blame the ubermench and hold him down
1213
1214
1215https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1216	...French existentialist champion Jean Paul Sartre, who incorporated much of Nietzsche’s anti-religious will to self-determination in his own thinking, was much more clear about acknowledging that if there is no a priori law, and we create our own purposes, we are nevertheless absolutely responsible for what we choose.
1217
1218
1219Sartre built of Nietzche. He decided people are reponsiple for their actions
1220
1221
1222	...My conclusion about Nietzsche’s conception of will is still reserved, but it strikes me as quite similar to the ill-defined demands by 1960s hippies for freedom from convention and responsibility, but without clear ideas of what would replace orthodoxy, or why people invested in orthodoxy should see advantage in acceding to vague demands.
1223
1224
1225hippies somehow got similar ideas to Neitszche
1226
1227
1228	...More interesting than the supine religionist asceticism, and a more exalted one Nietzsche saw flowing from an enlightened self-discipline, was Nietzsche’s conception of the consequences for Western civilization in pursuing the Christian conception of truth. He argued convincingly that the very methods whereby the Church imposed doctrine by resort to a dishonest lionisation of ‘truth’ led inevitably to the liberation of conscience from the Church in turning to scientific truth instead. Spinks summarised it thus:
1229
1230	    Scientific conscience, he declares in the Genealogy, is ‘the awe-inspiring catastrophe of a two-thousand year discipline in truth-telling, which finally forbids the lie entailed in the belief in God’ (2000: 114). (p. 104.)
1231
1232	It seems to me the irony here is overwhelming. After centuries of being ‘forced’ to tell the truth in the service of grotesque lies, the sheep thus trained finally turned on the lies with the catechism of being obliged to tell the truth according to their new scientific insights.
1233
1234
1235
1236https://www.quora.com/What-did-Nietzsche-think-about-scientists-and-science
1237
1238
1239Neitszche flunked out of physics class?
1240
1241
1242https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1243	The Ãœbermensch
1244
1245	Without voiding all other popular interpretations, my own response to Nietzsche’s Übermensch is plainly dismissive. I see in it, particularly as it is propounded in Thus Spake Zarathustra, a fearfully reactive defence of a type of sociopathy Nietzsche should have dismissed as reactive and weak even as he embarked on its defence.
1246
1247	All the talk about strength and discipline in overcoming the meanings and projects of others is valid, but talking nonsense about overcoming to end up nowhere at all, other than messianically exalted for purposelessness, is just fatuous. It seems to me this is Nietzsche enthralled with megalomania, seeking to lionise his own looming insanity as genius. Is there a clue in his preface to Thus Spake Zarathustra: ‘I have with this book given mankind the greatest gift that has ever been given it’? Or this from Ecce Homo: ‘Why do I know a few things more than other people? Why in fact am I so clever?’ Indeed! What does one say to a man so singularly convinced of his own genius?
1248
1249
1250Nietzsche a narcissist?
1251
1252
1253	My answer? It seems quite astonishing that for all Nietzsche’s brilliance and philosophical insight, he seems to have been remarkably ignorant of the nature of human social formation. His theories seem to ignore the inevitability of all people living within one or another social context, dependent to some degree on other people, and subject to some degree to the whims of other people. In that ignorance maybe he is reflecting nothing more than his own intellectual and social isolation, and his own sociopathic conception that one need not have any obligations to others, nor material or emotional ties. Nietzsche, patron saint of sociopaths? Prophet of a generation (or two) of idiot STEM savants? Contemptuous or ignorant (or both) of everything others do while enjoying the fruits of their labour all the same.
1254
1255
1256author says Nietzshce defending megalomaniac sociopaths, doesn't get the idea of society cooperating
1257
1258
1259	So, exactly what is the Übermensch? It is a German compound word combining forms of über (over, above, higher) and mensch (man, human, person). Spinks translates it to ‘Overman’, to give expression to the idea of a men ‘above’ mankind. It is a fair compromise. I have always intuitively translated Übermensch as ‘transcendent man’, to accord with Nietzsche’s insistence that this type of human transcends intellectual ties to orthodox ideas, conventions, practices, and constraints (pp. 116–121).
1260
1261
1262
1263https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-is-Nietzsches-%C3%BCbermensch
1264	Nietzsche’s way out of this was simple: he didn’t have one. He thought that no human being alive could replace our old values. But, if we created the right kind of society, we could, in a few generations, give rise to Übermenschen, people with such strong will, and with such precisely-engineered upbringing, and with such advanced, scientifically-trained intellects, that they could create their own values. Nietzsche had given up on the idea that present humans could create new values. The best we could do is try to make a world that would give rise to people so strong they could create their own values using the power of their will.
1265
1266
1267http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf
1268    15 Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favor of that KING-DESPOT OF THE BLOOD OF ZION, WHOM WE ARE PREPARING FOR THE WORLD.
1269
1270
1271
1272is this the world they're trying to make?
1273
1274
1275maybe they see it that they're reshaping the world as a proving-ground for despots or "Ubermenschen," basically more people like them.
1276
1277
1278https://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/the-enduring-legacy-of-chinas-great-famine/
1279	Society became terribly violent during the famine,” during which as many as 45 million people may have died, Ms. Zhou said in an interview.
1280
1281	“If you look at what is going on today, in a way I think there’s a lot we can see in what happened then in what happens now,” she said.
1282
1283	Today, “family members don’t have to take food out of another person’s mouth,” but disputes over property “tear families apart,” she said. “It’s very common.”
1284
1285	“I do believe it created a kind of long-lasting impact in the sense that, O.K., human beings are selfish, you can say that in general. But the use of violence, it really reached its height during the famine period and I believe that was the background behind the Cultural Revolution” that began just four years later, in 1966, killing many more.
1286
1287	Hopelessness and selfishness inform Chinese society to this day, she said.
1288
1289	“I very much feel that coming from this, what people have in China is a sense of hopelessness,” she said. “That to survive, the only way is to do it yourself.”
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1295	Looking at this conception more than a hundred years on, I think it has been more elegantly expressed by Sartre and Marcuse as a kind of self-determination immune from indoctrination or blackmail designed to create conformity, if not quite as the signal event of transcendence Nietzsche described.
1296
1297
1298Sartre and Marcuse ran with Neitsche's ubermench and refined it
1299
1300
1301	The only analogue that comes to mind for that messianic vision is the contemporary flirtation by idiot nerds with the singularity — the expungement of what is human in homo sapiens by the rise of cyborg monster calculators. 
1302
1303
1304"futurism" at work?
1305
1306
1307	There is one unexplored and intriguing idea to the Übermensch that no one has endorsed or sufficiently refuted since Nietzsche, probably because it would be seen as immoral to endorse, and yet unrealistic to refute: the Übermenschen make rules and values for themselves without necessarily regarding these as fit or applicable to others. It is as plain a statement of elitism as there can be, and without the often (wrongly) inferred idea that the Übermenschen should lead or lord it over their inferiors — the Untermenschen (lower, lesser, beneath).
1308
1309
1310https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch09.htm
1311	259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;--but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal--it takes place in every healthy aristocracy--must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendancy-- not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it LIVES, and because life IS precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter, people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to be absent--that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves! 
1312
1313
1314why is the author in denial about Nietzche?
1315
1316"exploitation is the thing to do right lets be honest guys"
1317
1318
1319
1320https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1321	Will to power
1322
1323	It is my opinion, not Spinks’s, that the book of the same title is a fraud. It was not written by Nietzsche, but rather assembled through a selective stitching together of notes and fragments by his sister, whose anti-Semitic husband apparently left a deeper impression on her than Friedrich’s contempt for such ressentiments.
1324
1325
1326author and spinks disagree on anti-semitism in will to power book.
1327
1328Where did author get this idea? Neitzche went on some kind of anti-semetic rant in geneology of morality
1329
1330
1331https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfMorals/GoogleGenOptimized_djvu.txt
1332	Our own German "gut" — might it 
1333	not denote " one godlike," the man of divine origin ? 
1334	And be identical with the name " Goths," denoting the 
1335
1336
1337	who, with most frightfully consistent logic, dared to 
1338	subvert the aristocratic equation of values (good = 
1339	noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of 
1340	God), and who, with the teeth of the profoundest 
1341	hatred (the hatred of impotency), clung to their own 
1342	valuation : " The wretched alone are the good ; the 
1343	poor, the impotent, the lowly alone are the good ; only 
1344	the sufferers, the needy, the sick, the ugly are pious ; 1 
1345	only they are godly ; them alone blessedness awaits ; — 
1346	but ye, ye, the proud and potent, ye are for aye and 
1347	evermore the wicked, the cruel, the lustful, the insati- 
1348	able, the godless; ye will also be, to all eternity, the 
1349	unblessed, the cursed and the damned !".... It is 
1350	known, wko has been the inheritor of this Jewish 
1351	transvaluation .... In regard to the enormous initi- 
1352	ative fatal beyond all measure, which the Jews gave by 
1353	this most fundamental declaration of war, I refer to the 
1354	proposition which elsewhere presented itself to me 
1355	{Beyond Good and Evil, aph. 195) — viz., that with the 
1356	Jews the slave-revolt in morality begins : that revolt, \ 
1357	which has a history of two thousand years behind it, 
1358	and which to-day is only removed from our vision, 
1359	because it — has been victorious . , , , 
1360
1361	S 
1362
1363	But this ye do not understand? Ye are blind 
1364
1365	to something which needed two thousand years ere 
1366	it came to be triumphant? There is nothing in it 
1367	surprising to me : all long things are hard to see, hard 
1368	to survey. But this is the event: from the trunk of 
1369	that tree of revenge and hatred, Jewish hatred — the 
1370	deepest and sublimest hatred, i.e., a hatred which 
1371	creates ideals and transforms values, and which never 
1372	had its like upon earth — something equally incompa- 
1373	rable grew up, a new love, the deepest and sub lime st 
1374	kind of love: — and, indeed, from what other trunk 
1375	could it have grown ? . . . . Quite wrong it is, how- 
1376	ever, to suppose, that this love grew up as the true 
1377	negation of that thirst of vengeance, as the antithesis of 
1378	the Jewish hatred! No, the reverse is true! This 
1379	love grew out of this trunk, as its crown, — as the 
1380	crown of triumph, which spread its foliage ever farther 
1381	and wider in clearest brightness and fulness of sun- 
1382	shine, and which with the same vitality strove upwards, 
1383	as it were, in the realm of light and elevation and 
1384	towards the goals of that hatred, towards victory, spoils 
1385	and seduction, with which the roots of that hatred pene- 
1386	trated ever more and more profoundly and eagerly into 
1387	everything deep and evil. This Jesus of Nazareth, as 
1388	the personified gospel of love, this saviour bringing 
1389	blessedness and victory unto the poor, the sick, the 
1390	sinners — did he not represent seduction in its most 
1391	awful and irresistible form — the seduction and by-way 
1392	to those sdimt Jewish values and new ideals ? Has not 
1393	Israel, even by the round-about-way of this " redeemer," 
1394	this seeming adversary and destroyer of Israel, attained 
1395
1396
1397	the last goal of its sublime vindictiveness ? Does it not 
1398	belong to the secret black-art of truly grand politics 
1399	of vengeance, of a vengeance far-seeing, underground, 
1400	slowly-gripping and fore -reckoning, that Israel itself 
1401	should deny and crucify before all the world the proper 
1402	tool of its vengeance, as though it were something 
1403	deadly inimical, — so that "all the world," namely all 
1404	enemies of Israel, might quite unhesitatingly bite at this 
1405	bait ? And could, on the other hand, any still more 
1406	dangerous bait be imagined, even with the utmost re- 
1407	finement of spirit ? Could we conceive anything, which 
1408	in influence seducing, intoxicating, narcotising, corrupt- 
1409	ing, might equal that symbol of the "sacred cross,"! 
1410	that awful paradox of a " God on the cross," that 
1411	mystery of an unfathomable, ultimate, extreme st cruelty 
1412	and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man? 
1413	. . .-. Thus much is certain, that sub hoc signo Israel, 
1414	with its vengeance and transvaluation of all values, 
1415	has so far again and again triumphed over all other 
1416	ideals, over all nobler ideals. 
1417
1418
1419	But, Sir, why still speak of nobler ideals ? Let us 
1420
1421	submit to the facts: the folk has conquered — or the 
1422	" slaves," or the "mob," or the "herd" or — call it what 
1423	you will! If this has come about through the Jews, 
1424	gdod ! then never a people had a more world-historic 
1425	mission. The " lords " are done away with ; the mo- 
1426	rality of the common man has triumphed. This vic- 
1427	tory may at the same time be regarded as an act of 
1428	blood-poisoning (it has jumbled the races together) — 
1429	I shall not object. But, beyond a doubt, the intoxica- 
1430	tion did succeed. The redemption of mankind (from 
1431	"the lords," to wit) is making excellent headway; 
1432	everything judaTses, christianises, or vulgarises in full 
1433	view (words are no matter!). The progress of this 
1434	poisoning, through the entire body of mankind, seems 
1435	irresistible ; the tempo and step of it may even be, from 
1436	now on, ever slower, finer, less audible, more cautious 
1437	— time is not wanting .... " With reference to this 
1438	I end has the church to-day still a necessary mission, or 
1439	even a right to existence ? Or could it be dispensed 
1440	with? Quaerititr.
1441
1442
1443Neitzche says Jewish hatred and plots started "slave revolt" and spread "slave morality", his least favorite thing, all over the world
1444
1445blames them for Jesus and spreading christianity and poisoning the world
1446
1447
1448
1449https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1450	Fraud or not, however, Nietzsche did have ideas about will and power expressed as a scattering of hints and remarks in his works.
1451
1452	Spinks summarises will to be less of a deliberate effort than a force pervading all life, human and not, conscious and not, that seeks to dominate other life in an evolutionary sense.
1453
1454	Spinks argues that Nietzsche regarded
1455
1456	    … all life, not just human life, as united by a common striving for power. Human life (with all its truths and norms) is merely a form through which life passes. (p. 134.)
1457
1458
1459	    ...
1460    	… the aim of life is neither self-preservation nor moral and spiritual enlightenment but the increase of power and ‘the will to appropriate, dominate, increase, grow stronger’ (p. 137).
1461
1462
1463Neitzche said the definition of life is to get power, appropriate, dominate, grow stronger
1464
1465
1466https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#PoweLife
1467	A well-known passage appears near the opening of the late work, The Antichrist:
1468
1469	    What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself.
1470
1471	    What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness.
1472
1473	    What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.
1474
1475	    Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness (Renaissance virtue, virtù, virtue that is moraline-free). (A 2)
1476
1477
1478	In the literature, claims of this sort are associated with a “will to power doctrine”, commonly viewed as one of Nietzsche’s central ideas (see section 6.1). That doctrine seems to include the proposal that creatures like us (or more broadly: all life, or even all things period) aim at the enhancement of their power—and then further, that this fact entails that enhanced power is good for us (or for everything).
1479
1480	In the middle of the twentieth century, many readers (more or less casually) received this as a deeply unattractive, blunt claim that “Might makes right”, which they associated with disturbing social and political tendencies salient in the era (see, e.g., Beauvoir 1948: 72).
1481
1482
1483http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/nietzsche/themes/
1484	On one level, the will to power is a psychological insight: our fundamental drive is for power as realized in independence and dominance. This will is stronger than the will to survive, as martyrs willingly die for a cause if they feel that associating themselves with that cause gives them greater power, and it is stronger than the will to sex, as monks willingly renounce sex for the sake of a greater cause. While the will to power can manifest itself through violence and physical dominance, Nietzsche is more interested in the sublimated will to power, where people turn their will to power inward and pursue self-mastery rather than mastery over others. An Indian mystic, for instance, who submits himself to all sorts of physical deprivation gains profound self-control and spiritual depth, representing a more refined form of power than the power gained by the conquering barbarian.
1485
1486	On a deeper level, the will to power explains the fundamental, changing aspect of reality. According to Nietzsche, everything is in flux, and there is no such thing as fixed being. Matter is always moving and changing, as are ideas, knowledge, truth, and everything else. The will to power is the fundamental engine of this change. For Nietzsche, the universe is primarily made up not of facts or things but rather of wills. The idea of the human soul or ego is just a grammatical fiction, according to Nietzsche. What we call “I” is really a chaotic jumble of competing wills, constantly struggling to overcome one another. Because change is a fundamental aspect of life, Nietzsche considers any point of view that takes reality to be fixed and objective, be it religious, scientific, or philosophical, as life denying. A truly life-affirming philosophy embraces change and recognizes in the will to power that change is the only constant in the world.
1487
1488
1489http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/Kidd/thesis/pdf/protocols.pdf
1490	...	3. It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
1491
1492	...Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power.
1493
1494	...MIGHT IS RIGHT    
1495
1496	12. Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you. 
1497
1498
1499I think Neitzsche is saying that people have competing "wills," like computions to do certain things (eat, sleep, fuck), and probably computions to act based on societal influences (which he wanted to overcome) like will to adhere to "slave morality," but the only will that matters is the will to power. For him "good" is getting more power and "bad" is weakness.
1500
1501
1502
1503https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1504	Moreover:
1505
1506    … knowledge is an effect of power rather than its precondition; we become ‘knowledgeable’ insofar as we possess the power to create a vision of reality and impose this vision upon others (p. 138).
1507
1508
1509spinks says Nietsche saw "knowledge" as an effect of power since power gives you ability to impose a vision of reality on others
1510
1511I guess this goes with his idea that truth is subjective, "winners write history," etc.
1512
1513
1514	...Lessons in misdirection … ?
1515
1516	It is difficult for me not to regard Nietzsche as trapping himself in his own cleverness. Almost everything he wrote to undermine conventional thinking as slavish reaction against more noble ideas could be regarded as no more than reaction in itself.
1517
1518
1519^^^
1520
1521
1522	...In the same vein, understanding Nietzsche assists in understanding the potential obfuscation of even recent history to suit the purposes of particular interest groups. This applies not just to general historiography, but particularly to those interpretations that associate Nietzsche with Nazi ideology. It might be an interesting topic for another discussion, but I see the importance in consideringthe ill-advised link between Nietzsche and the Nazis as arising from a seventy year fetish of constant reference back to the Nazi phenomenon that pervades Western culture so deeply we run the risk of understanding less about Nazi Germany today than we did in 1945.
1523
1524
1525
1526https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche
1527	Regarding Hitler, for example, there is a debate. Some authors claim that he probably never read Nietzsche, or that if he did, his reading was not extensive.[9] Hitler more than likely became familiar with Nietzsche quotes during his time in Vienna when quotes by Nietzsche were frequently published in pan-German newspapers.[10] Nevertheless, others point to a quote in Hitler's Table Talk, where the dictator mentioned Nietzsche when he spoke about what he called "great men", as an indication that Hitler may have been familiarized with Nietzsche's work.[11] Other authors like Melendez (2001) point out to the parallels between Hitler's and Nietzsche's titanic anti-egalitarianism,[12] and the idea of the "übermensch",[13] a term which was frequently used by Hitler and Mussolini to refer to the so-called "Aryan race", or rather, its projected future after fascist engineering.[14] Alfred Rosenberg, an influential Nazi ideologist, also delivered a speech in which he related National Socialism to Nietzsche's ideology.[14][15]
1528
1529
1530https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues
1531	Alfred Baeumler (1887–1968), German philosopher in Nazi Germany. He was a leading interpreter of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy as legitimizing Nazism. Thomas Mann read Baeumler's work on Nietzsche in the early 1930s, and characterized passages of it as "Hitler prophecy."[1]
1532
1533	Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946), considered one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds, including the racial policy of Nazi Germany, antisemitism, Lebensraum, abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, and opposition to degenerate art. He is also known for his rejection of Christianity, while playing a role in the development of Positive Christianity. At Nuremberg he was tried, sentenced to death, and executed by hanging as a war criminal.[2]
1534
1535
1536https://archive.org/stream/TheMythOfTheTwentiethCentury/Myth_djvu.txt
1537	The Myth of the 20th Century 
1538
1539	(Mythus des XX. Jahrhunderts) 
1540	An Evaluation of the Spiritual-Intellectual Confrontations of Our Age 
1541
1542	by Alfred Rosenberg 
1543
1544	...Around the turn of the 19th century we experienced the appearance of a great number of personalities who, with the blossoming of 
1545	our entire culture, marked that era with an unforgettable stamp. For a long time the era of the machine destroyed personality ideals as 
1546	well as powers, type forming. The milieu, the factory, became master. A concept of mixed causality triumphed over true science and 
1547	philosophy. Marxist sociology — through its mass delusion, quantity doctrine — strangled the concept of quality in research. The stock 
1548	exchange became the idol of the materialistic sickness of the times. 
1549
1550	Nietzsche embodied the despairing cry of millions against the latter. His wild exclamations about the Superman were a violent 
1551	extension of his subjected personal life which had been strangled by the material pressure of the times. Now, at least one man suddenly 
1552	destroyed all values in fanatical rebellion. He raged wildly. A feeling of relief passed through the souls of all searching Europeans. That 
1553	Nietzsche became insane, is symbolic. An enormous blocked up will to creation forged a path like a storm flood. The same will, 
1554	inwardly broken long before, could no longer attain shape. An era, enslaved for generations, understood in its powerlessness only the 
1555	subjective side of the great will and vital experience of Friedrich Nietzsche. It falsified the deepest struggle for personality into a cry for 
1556	the unleashing of all instincts. 
1557
1558	The Red standards then joined the banner of Nietzsche, and the nomadic wandering Marxist preachers — the sort of men whose 
1559	doctrine scarcely anyone else had unmasked with such derision as Nietzsche himself. In his name, racial pollution through Syrians and 
1560	Blacks was sanctified, although Nietzsche, in fact, strove for selective racial breeding. Nietzsche has fallen to the dreams of overheated 
1561	political whores, which is worse than falling into the hands of robbers. The German people heard only of a release from all bonds, 
1562	subjectivism, personality, and nothing about discipline and inward building up. Hear Nietzsche's beautiful words: 
1563
1564	From the future come winds with secret beat of wings, and to sensitive ears comes good news. 
1565
1566	These words represented an apprehension filled with longing in the midst of an insane world in which he, alongside Lagarde and 
1567	Wagner, lived as almost the only ones with foresight. 
1568
1569
1570https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues
1571	Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), German philosopher who was politically involved with National Socialism. The relations between Martin Heidegger and Nazism remain controversial. He was a member of the Nazi party, he joined the NSDAP on May 1, 1933 three weeks after being appointed rector of the University of Freiburg. Heidegger resigned the rectorship one year later, in April 1934, but remained a member of the NSDAP until the end of World War II. His first act as rector was to eliminate all democratic structures, including those that had elected him rector. 
1572
1573
1574https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/10/18/in-his-own-words/
1575	18th of December, 1931
1576
1577	Dear Fritz, dear Liesl, dear boys,
1578
1579	We would like to wish you a very merry Christmas. It is probably snowing where you are, inspiring the hope that Christmas will once again reveal its true magic. I often think back to the days before Christmas back at home in our little town, and I wish for the artistic energy to truly capture the mood, the splendor, the excitement and anticipation of this time.
1580
1581	[…]
1582
1583	It would appear that Germany is finally awakening, understanding and seizing its destiny.
1584
1585	I hope that you will read Hitler’s book; its first few autobiographical chapters are weak. This man has a remarkable and sure political instinct, and he had it even while all of us were still in a haze, there is no way of denying that. The National Socialist movement will soon gain a wholly different force. It is not about mere party politics—it’s about the redemption or fall of Europe and western civilization. Anyone who does not get it deserves to be crushed by the chaos. Thinking about these things is no hindrance to the spirit of Christmas, but marks our return to the character and task of the Germans, which is to say to the place where this beautiful celebration originates.
1586
1587	 
1588
1589	13th of April, 1933
1590
1591	Dear Fritz!
 I would like to wish you and yours a very happy Easter!
1592
1593	Thank you for your long letter. With each day that passes we see Hitler growing as a statesman. The world of our Volk and Reich is about to be transformed and everyone who has eyes with which to watch, ears with which to listen, and a heart to spur him into action will find himself captivated by genuine, deep excitement—once again, we are met with a great reality and with the pressure of having to build this reality into the spirit of the Reich and the secret mission of the German being […]
1594
1595	 
1596
1597	18th of August, 1941
1598
1599	Dear Fritz, dear Liesel, dear Boys! 
[…] It is not Russianism that will bring about the destruction of the earth but Americanism, not just the English but all of Europe has fallen prey to it as it represents modernity in its monstrosity.
1600
1601	 
1602
1603	23rd of July, 1945
1604
1605	Dear Fritz, dear Liesel, dear Franz!
1606
1607	Thank you for your words. It is not very nice here. We have had to host people from the concentration camp. […] What the French intend to do is unclear. But it doesn’t seem as though they want to dispense with me. It is mostly the Center Party that is rallying against me, which all the theologians and all reasonable people are resisting. But everything is miserable and much worse than it was under the Nazis. I haven’t managed to do even an hour of work: the heat and the state of the city are bad for my heart; I can’t go out to the cottage. […]
1608
1609
1610https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_ideologues
1611	Although after the war he neither apologized nor publicly expressed regret for his involvement with his affiliation with Nazism,[4] in private he called it "the biggest stupidity of his life" (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[5]
1612
1613
1614https://www.quora.com/Did-Heidegger-accept-Nietzsches-teachings-on-the-will-to-power
1615	Heidegger blames Nietzsche for leading the Germans astray, and blames the philosophy of the will for creating this monstrosity. Moreover, Heidegger never apologizes or even mentions his involvement in the Nazi party after the fact.
1616
1617
1618
1619author still in denial about Nietzsche
1620
1621I guess they have to white-wash him a bit for their left-wing sociopaths 
1622
1623
1624
1625https://medium.com/@PeterSStrempel/nietzsche-patron-saint-of-the-sociopaths-4d91b2178ec6
1626	Nietzsche’s thinking on genealogy, morality, truth, ressentiment, and nihilism are invaluable tools for critical analysis, particularly in checking one’s own cherished assumptions and prejudices; we might like to think we are all fair minded and have fewer biases than others, but the reality is that none of us are without prejudice. That word may have a bad connotations, but prejudice need to be no worse than ‘discernment’, even if it can be as bad as bigotry. What Nietzsche may remind us of is how to spot these tendencies in ourselves.
1627
1628	Finally, Nietzsche has not lost his original power to serve as an example of misdirection — dressing up the lionisation of sociopathy as noble thinking pitted against slavish ressentiment. In an era of evangelists, motivational speakers, charismatic CEOs, bought and paid for politicians, mass marketing and surveillance, and idiot savant STEM specialists, recognising their corrosive effects on liberal democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, and self-determination seems increasingly important. That is, important if any value is attached to the democratic ideals of liberty and egalitarianism. Understanding Nietzsche’s work can be enormously useful in recognising such deceptions and the justifications presented for them.