A Wake-up Call

apaosha wrote:

If it ever comes to violence, then that violence will only be the final culmination of the real struggle, which will have been a struggle for the revaluation of values in this culture. Lashing out stupidly will achieve nothing.

The war is like no other because the weapons are ideas and the battleground is the human mind. Actual physical violence is irrelevant.

Thinking more on that, I think at some point physical violence is going to be inevitable... because like Heisman and Strauss pointed out, the very jewish example stands for the fact, without territory [schools, courts, taken over by the PC machine now], memes alone cannot survive for long... making us the new jews...

OhFortunae wrote:

More inclusivity, lowering the lat, degenerate promises.. Anybody can understand the commands of an allah, fewer the words of Zarathustra if they don't take them already out of context to serve their own judeo-xtian needs.

Right.

I've always thought 'revolution' needs to start at the level of architecture... mass-gathering temples to bind people with common aesthetic perspectives on the cosmos...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A sense of society.

Of course violence will be inevitable as it has always been, tribalism is the instinctive fundament of consciousness, but what tribe do they identify with through training and exposure; racial-appearance, memetic ‘’ought to be / has always been this way’’, Pepsi vs. coke..
Eventually it is a minority fighting another minority and the masses will adjust to their new masters.


That Icelandic temple is State approved and the ones who will take care of ‘’official’’ organizing, have already had ‘’hate mail’’ from pagans across Europa because they are LGTB-tolerant (or just gay?) and all-race friendly.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They argue that being intolerant to homosexuals is Christian morality, which I agree with to an extent; but aversion is also biologically rooted.

OhFortunae wrote:

Of course violence will be inevitable as it has always been, tribalism is the instinctive fundament of consciousness, but what tribe do they identify with through training and exposure; racial-appearance, memetic ‘’ought to be / has always been this way’’, Pepsi vs. coke..
Eventually it is a minority fighting another minority and the masses will adjust to their new masters.


That Icelandic temple is State approved and the ones who will take care of ‘’official’’ organizing, have already had ‘’hate mail’’ from pagans across Europa because they are LGTB-tolerant (or just gay?) and all-race friendly.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They argue that being intolerant to homosexuals is Christian morality, which I agree with to an extent; but aversion is also biologically rooted.

So much for that then!

See what I mean... pagan now can mean any new-ageism if you leave definitions indiscriminate... and just seeing now a gay marriage apparently by an asatru priest? or a priest simply conducting it in asatru style?...



You personally are on a good path fortunae... inspiring people with remembrance of your land, your heroes, your epics, your achievements is maybe as good as it can get now.

At the political level, there needs to be a massive change in regulating immigrants and maybe other European countries will follow suit after that article Drome posted on the Dutch acknowledging the failure of multiculturalism...

It is not about multiculturalism in general but specifically from Islamic countries; as long you accept our way of living (tolerating men fucking each other in the ass), you are welcome. Though this contrast in ideals may create conflict much sooner than if they were alike to the Mexicans, different in genes though easy to integrate within shared ideals.

But the change in mind-set among the Dutch is easy to follow from PC extreme to admitting they like Wilders (the controlled opposition though more straight forward then the right of other countries).
Especially with the pressuring from non-Whites; non-negro muslims as well as the negroes themselves, to ban Sinterklaas and our slave parades, will ignite tribalism in their hearts; I could feel the tension last year already.

Not sure what you mean by inspiring and my heroes; I don't consider myself Dutch nor are their heroes mine to build upon (to an extent maybe).

OhFortunae wrote:

It is not about multiculturalism in general but specifically from Islamic countries; as long you accept our way of living (tolerating men fucking each other in the ass), you are welcome. Though this contrast in ideals may create conflict much sooner than if they were alike to the Mexicans, different in genes though easy to integrate within shared ideals.

But the change in mind-set among the Dutch is easy to follow from PC extreme to admitting they like Wilders (the controlled opposition though more straight forward then the right of other countries).
Especially with the pressuring from non-Whites; non-negro muslims as well as the negroes themselves, to ban Sinterklaas and our slave parades, will ignite tribalism in their hearts; I could feel the tension last year already.

Not sure what you mean by inspiring and my heroes; I don't consider myself Dutch nor are their heroes mine to build upon (to an extent maybe).

Multiculturalism - as we have it now, the false "diversity" is systemic erasure of history and identity. Egalitarianism and anything goes of the cultural marxists, as long as the machinary is running smooth.

America outsources and buys out IQ merchandise - the best brains money and speech can buy from japan, china, india and wherever... the idea is to show diversity can create the most powerful nation. The Nobel prize is a massive PC market machinary to implanting that ideal.
This is the level you are competing.
For any European country to acknowledge the failure of MC is a big deal, I'd think.
That too, at this time, when what genius worthy of checkmating the american hegemony on that idea and cultural homogeneity can produce, has not been demonstrated.
So on the critical side, I'd say, its not enough to show multiculturalism has failed - its only half the pic., but you are yet to demonstrate what a homogenous nation can produce at shoulders "despite" the resources available to the US.
Else you'd be living in past glory. And the war against eradicating roots and history is to make sure you have no future and you are unable to demonstrate.

As to heroes, I meant in general.
Remembering your [general 'your', not you] epics and your heroes and keeping your history alive is as good as it can get at the individual level.

Nightmare wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

I forgot li'l Erik gets appreciation for one video and that means it locked forever for anything else he does from then on... its not like, anybody could be totally unemotional and indept. abt. what they are saying. Image matters to him, and so he thinks it matters to everybody else,,, typically pathetic.

No, no.

Lyssa wrote:

He's after heroism, not release, is my understanding.
He needs that.

First you start off by stating that I'm after heroism, not release - then, all of a sudden, you switch to claiming that I am just after release, just after "glory-porn". You did this for reasons I already stated.

Quote :

Yea, I am a wannabe in front of Perpetual... whatever.

No, you need to pay better attention; I never claimed you are a " wannabe ".

Quote :

Meanwhile, nooooooooo, Jihad is a f----ed up shitty concept that is Totally embedded in semitic history. Knowledge is abt. Increased discrimination, not all-inclusive lcds in the name of poetic license, such that we conclude because Vikings eat food, and Pygmies eat food,,, Vikings and Pygmies are the same!

Noooo. And Never.

No, you are now just acting like Arc; being a petty nitpicker, because you are too cowardly to acknowledge you were wrong.

The White race is being systematically assaulted genetically and memetically, and you guys are merely content with talking. Like I said, this forum is great; but more can be done.

I'm not trying to say we need to imitate exactly what the Jihadists do, but we surely can learn a thing or two about their commitment to their people and ideology.

Are you guys void of passion? Where is your thymos? If people were to break into your homes and assault your family, would you just sit in a corner and intellectualize it, or would you pick up a sword and kill?

You guys are emotionally dead, empty; unable to feel strong passions.

Whatever

All or nothing!

You're still doing this insecurity thing, a crisis shame tactic and unsettlement for industriousness, which is a motif among social media users and disgruntled parents, especially the younger and older generations, with the former as gamers and memers and the latter as a life working a meaningless job: you assume that because you aren't satisfied with your position then others must then be positioned underneath you because they uphold an elusive complacency in what they are doing, whereas you and they have to slogan and amplify your alleged importance by dispersion of your life ideals into universal affairs. It's the image of importance posing as active with the projector as passive.
It's these assumptions which expose you and the rest.

Etiquette: it's none of your business to get up in Someone's Business. First order of social dissociation.
Do you want an offensive, then approachment by encroachment, will lend to unnecessary defensive against you.

Quote :

You're still doing this insecurity thing, a crisis shame tactic and unsettlement for industriousness, which is a motif among social media users and disgruntled parents, especially the younger and older generations, with the former as gamers and memers and the latter as a life working a meaningless job: you assume that because you aren't satisfied with your position then others must then be positioned underneath you because they uphold an elusive complacency in what they are doing, whereas you and they have to slogan and amplify your alleged importance by dispersion of your life ideals into universal affairs. It's the image of importance posing as active with the projector as passive.
It's these assumptions which expose you and the rest.

Etiquette: it's none of your business to get up in Someone's Business. First order of social dissociation.
Do you want an offensive, then approachment by encroachment, will lend to unnecessary defensive against you.

You don't seem to understand that the disease of modernity is everywhere, in all branches of society.
This mass industrial society is the antithesis of a warrior culture; Essentially all jobs are specialized cog-in-the-wheel positions. The military is not warrior-esque; the wars are petty and when you die, you are not remembered; you are just a number, just another body in a black bag. The only career paths that resemble something of the ancient past are professional boxing and MMA; that's about as close as it gets to a warrior path. All else is menial.

In modernity, there is no warrior culture, no shared past, no real identity.

So of course I'm disgruntled about my position in society. Even if I was, say, a doctor, I would still feel a fundamental discontent with life; I'm looking for something larger than life, so to speak; something epic, a noble cause to live and die for.

Homeric Greece was warrior culture par excellence.

Back then was the age of heroes. I'm not meant for modernity; I'm meant for a different age, a time long gone. I don't belong in a cubicle; I belong on a damn battlefield swinging a sword!

Moderns are content with modernity; ancients, classic souls abhor it.

You assume others don't understand a phenomenon because they don't institutionalize it in the way to which you want them.  
The battle is immured as always and only yours: you create the battle and you battle this battle, whether you are superimposed in antiquity or some other place and time agreeable or disagreeable. You were born at your period, neither at the right period nor wrong period: you make the period or else the period makes you.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

[y]ou make the period or else the period makes you.

Which is exactly what I'm trying to do.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Everyday, I see the effects of modern nihilism. Everyday, I see what is becoming of the masses and especially of my people.

I'm disgusted, bewildered, and upset at what is occurring.

I see my people worshipping foreign gods, I see them being mentally raped by a sewer culture ( niggerization ), and I see how disconnected my people are from their past, from any grand narrative.

It is my duty, my mission to wake my people up from their slumber and to counteract the modern disease as much as possible.

This is a war like no other.

And we also must be warriors like no other.

Perpetualburn wrote:

We're not afraid of the heat. Go forth. But send only your best self.

Don't pretend like you're protecting anyone here.

Some things are best said in private.

Nightmare wrote:

Perpetualburn wrote:

We're not afraid of the heat. Go forth. But send only your best self.

Don't pretend like you're protecting anyone here.

Some things are best said in private.

Maybe, but not the best things.

Coaching others to be heroes is no less heroic than being a hero oneself.

If one cant make it being a boxer or a somebody at the MMA or wherever, one can always train oneself to be fit to train another.
Poets and Novelists who can create heroes and worthy visions - worlds with words are no less heroic.
The Olympic relay of life... passing the flame and keeping it ever burning.

Lyssa wrote:

Coaching others to be heroes is no less heroic than being a hero oneself.

If one cant make it being a boxer or a somebody at the MMA or wherever, one can always train oneself to be fit to train another.
Poets and Novelists who can create heroes and worthy visions - worlds with words are no less heroic.
The Olympic relay of life... passing the flame and keeping it ever burning.

Well stated, Lys.

The reason I have not turned professional as a boxer is because of my intellectual life; on the surface, they don't seem to be in agreement; as a boxer, you are going to be hit in the face and possibly lose your mental powers. This isn't to say that all boxers become retarded at the end of their careers, but many of them end up " punchy ", like Rocky Balboa.

I decided that my intellectual pursuits were more important than boxing.

And I've thought about becoming a boxing trainer; that's something I can see myself being great at.

It seems to be the pas de deux that the heroes which reach a mass congregation of influenced do not churn out a concomitant proportionality of heroes, as these followers are complacent with a validation and crutch to their positional coping; just enough to suchlike get by.

It, en bloc, doesn't take but at least one carrier for continuity.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

It seems to be the pas de deux that the heroes which reach a mass congregation of influenced do not churn out a concomitant proportionality of heroes, as these followers are complacent with a validation and crutch to their positional coping; just enough to suchlike get by.

It, en bloc, doesn't take but at least one carrier for continuity.

1. That's as bad as everyone thinking they are heroes.

2. Isn't that something we also see about the Capitalist phenomemon?

The competitive market creates too many innovators... so myriad, they fall apart. Satyr called this the Idiot Savant trend:

Satyr wrote:

"Idiot Savants.

A byproduct of increasing specialization.
An individual becomes an "expert" in one field, knowing all there is to know about it (a collector of information he accepts from the "appropriate" sources and regurgitates as a matter of fact); his entire life is taken over, with brief breaks to replenish his energies and to recreate, with keeping up to date with the information he requires to maintain his expert status.

As a consequence his performances in all other areas and his knowledge of any other field of knowledge, suffer.
He may even become socially inept having not cultivated the social aspects of his behavior.
Common terms for such types are: nerd, geek, dweeb etc.

He increasingly becomes dependent upon other experts in other fields, in this way also reinforcing his own status as a specialist they too depend upon.
This increasing interdependence results in the opposite of freedom and uniqueness. His inadequacies in all areas except the area of his expertise makes him more dependent on imitating and simply accepting popular trends or fashions coming from other "specialists" in the fields of behavior or sexualtiy or comedy or charm.
The source leads to a uniformity because it is itself trained by an institution wanting to produce a particular mindset and to reinforce the value of a particular behavior and a particular way of thinking. The institution, after all, wishes to preserve its own relevance and so it both promotes an attitude which does so and it also glorifies those who adhere to its principles.

In the sexual game this type becomes antipathetic to the opposite sex. it lacks the charm and knowhow, the contact with its own essence as male or female to be attractive...yet its social success makes resources accessible to him. What he or she lacks in charm and sexual energy he makes up with social status.
His special skills and techniques make him valuable to the other experts who need him to take care of the aspects of social living they cannot dedicate but little time to, thusly freeing their own time to dedicate to their own specialty.

This codependency is defended vehemently, as the years pass by and more investments in time and resources have been made and more dependencies have been nurtured.
The individual becomes conservative to preserve this inter-relationship making himself viable within it.

As a side-effect these individuals become less and less able to perceive any grand picture or to challenge the status quo. Their entire intellectual capacity is taken over with the finer details of their craft, submerging themselves in the particular, loosing view of the universal."

3. Evolution takes long periods of inculcation and digestion... so values dont just stay as memes in the head, but to become embodied - epigenetic, takes generations. At the end of every 7th or 10th, an atavism is thrown up, a genius and a hero appear.

1. What is?

2. I suppose in many ways.

Where's the threshold at which congenital talents are disciplined into a concordant discipline?

A strength in one area is at the cost to weakness in another area, whereby limitations or incapabilities or without a focus of strengths grants an even distribution of weakness.
It's a rarity to be a jack of all trades and master of them all, which is not to say that subspeciality upon subspeciality is a strengthening.

Isn't that what a PhD boils down to: knowing everything about nothing.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

1. What is?

Remaining as hero-worshippers is as bad as everyone thinking they are heroes. The culture of narcissim and capitalism loop into each other because anyone can proclaim mastery now. Any innovator can be an artist, claim to be a genius. Anyone can be a philosopher.
Have you heard the phrase "That's great", or "Brilliant" as a response to just about anything?

When you do not know what to say, its a good space-filler,, you say, that's Great. Was watching a cooking show, and the chef adding extra cheese made the foodie remark "That's great". He added grated flavoured cabbage on top, and the foodie said again, "Brilliant". I catch my own self doing that sometimes and realize how talking, words have become so mindless. Anything is great now... and when anything sells, anyone and everyone is a hero.

Quote :

2. I suppose in many ways.

Where's the threshold at which congenital talents are disciplined into a concordant discipline?

A strength in one area is at the cost to weakness in another area, whereby limitations or incapabilities or without a focus of strengths grants an even distribution of weakness.
It's a rarity to be a jack of all trades and master of them all, which is not to say that subspeciality upon subspeciality is a strengthening.

Isn't that what a PhD boils down to: knowing a lot about a little.

Rank priorities in relation to the guiding ideal, find that organic unity con/centrating at one central point.

I guess when social interactions are televized or socialized or popularized it's a pretense to appear civilized, enlightened or articulate, but otherwise, naturally, due to this narcissism aren't they disinclined to see, concede and react correspondingly to any positive or "great" characteristics of others, hence ressentiment and the quotidian of negativity.

Isn't it healthy to have 'heroic idealism' related to blood and values as of pagans; not the heroism to follow the American dream or to get a decoration which they can take back if they disagree with your world views (they consume their own given vomit).

Sloterdijk has an interesting chapter dedicated in his book Cynicism-Kynicism to herosim; how the roles shifted due to technological advancements, the born heroes are officers in the safehaven and the cowards / Moderates are given a schizo-training of ''heroism''.

To say in British-English ''Brilliant'' is actually a mediocre compliment, not even that. But they know it themselves and use it as such, the de-valued word.

Steiner, Rudolf wrote:

IT IS STRANGE that with the infatuation for Nietzsche in our day, someone must appear whose feelings, no less than those of many others, are drawn to the particular personality, and yet who, in spite of this, must constantly keep before him the deep contradictions which exist between this type of spirit, and the ideas and feelings of those who represent themselves as adherents of his world conception. Such a one who stands apart must, above all, beware of the contrast between the relationship of those contemporaries to Nietzsche a decade ago as the night of madness broke over the “fighter against his time” and what existed when death took him from us on the 25th of August, 1900. It seems as if the complete opposite has happened from what Nietzsche prophesied in regard to his effect on his contemporaries in the last days of his creative work. The first part of his book, in which he tried to recoin the values of thousands of years, his Antichrist, lay completed at the onset of his illness. He begins with the words, “This book belongs to the very few; perhaps not even one of these is yet living. There may be those who understand my Zarathustra; how could I confuse myself with those for whom ears are growing already today? Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some of my readers will be born posthumously.” At his death it seemed as if the “day after tomorrow” had already come. One must call into this apparent “day after tomorrow” the words of Zarathustra: “You say you believe in Zarathustra? But of what importance is Zarathustra? You are my believers, but of what importance are all believers? Now I exhort you to lose me and to find yourselves; and only when you have denied me will I return to you.” Who would dare to say whether Nietzsche, were he to live today in fresh creativity, would look with greater pleasure upon those who revere him with doubts, or upon others? But it must be permitted, especially today, to look back, beyond these present-day admirers, to the time when he felt himself alone and misunderstood in the midst of the spiritual life surrounding him, when some people lived who felt it blasphemous to be called his “believers,” because he appeared to them to be a spirit whom one could not encounter importunately with a “yes” or “no,” but like an earthquake in the realm of the spirit, which stirs up questions for which premature answers can only be like unripe fruits. But ten years ago, more moving than the news of his death today, two pieces of news which followed closely upon each other, came to the “ears” which had “grown” for the Nietzsche admirers of that time. The first concerned the cycle of lectures which Georg Brandes had held about the world conception of Nietzsche at the University of Copenhagen in the year 1888. Nietzsche felt this recognition to be one which had come forth from “single ones” which were “born posthumously.” He felt himself jerked out of his loneliness in a way which was in harmony with his spirit. He did not want to be evaluated; he wanted to be “described,” characterized. And soon upon this news followed the report that his mind, tom from its loneliness, had succumbed to the frightful destiny of spiritual darkness.
And, while he himself could no longer contribute, his contemporaries had the leisure to sharpen the outlines of his picture. Through the observation of his personality, the picture of the time could imprint itself ever more clearly for them; the picture of the time, from which his spirit rises like a Böcklin figure. The worlds of his soul ideals could be illuminated by the light which the spiritstars of the second half of the nineteenth century cast upon them. In full clarity stood the points in which he was truly great. But these also overshadowed the reason why he had to wander in loneliness. The nature of his being led him over, heights of spirit life. He stepped forth like one to whom only the essentials of mankind's development are of concern. But this essential touched him as much as others are touched in their soul by only the most intimate situations. Just as the souls of others are burdened directly by only the most immediate personal experiences, so the great questions of culture, the mighty needs for knowledge of his age, decisively passed through his soul. What permeated only the heads of many of his contemporaries, became for him a personal affair of the heart.
Greek culture, Schopenhauer's world conception, Wagner's music dramas, the knowledge of the more recent natural science, aroused in him such personal, deep feelings as would have been aroused in others only by the experiences of a strong, passionate love. What the entire age lived through in hopes and doubts, in temptations and joys of knowledge, Nietzsche experienced in his special way on his lonesome heights. He found no new ideas; but he suffered and rejoiced in the ideas of his time in a way different from that of his contemporaries. It was their task to give birth to the ideas; before him arose the difficult question, How can one live with these ideas?
His educational path had made Nietzsche a philologist. He had penetrated so deeply into the world of Greek spiritual culture that his teacher, Ritschl, could recommend him with these words to the University of Basel, which engaged the young scholar before he had taken his doctorate: Friedrich Nietzsche is a genius and is able to do whatever he puts his mind to. He may well have achieved excellent results in the sense of the requirements made of philologists. But his relationship to Greek culture was not only that of a philologist. He did not live in ancient Greece in thought alone; with his whole heart he was deeply engrossed in Greek thinking and feeling. The bearers of Greek culture did not remain the object of his studies; they became his personal friends. During the first period of his teaching activity in Basel, he worked out a book about the philosophers of the tragic age before Socrates. It was published among his posthumus works. He does not write like a scholar about Thales, Heraclitus and Parmenides; he converses with these figures of antiquity as with personalities with whom his heart is closely connected. The passion which he feels for them makes him a stranger to the Western culture, which according to his feelings, since Socrates has taken paths other than those of ancient times. Socrates was Nietzsche's enemy because he had dulled the great tragic fundamental moods of his predecessors. The instructive mind of Socrates strove toward an understanding of reality. He desired reconciliation with life through virtue. But there is nothing, according to Nietzsche, which can degrade mankind more than the acceptance of life as it is. Life cannot reconcile itself with itself; man can only bear this life if he creates over and above it. Before Socrates, the Greeks understood this. Nietzsche believed that he found their fundamental mood expressed in these words which, according to legend, the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, gave as answer to the question, What is best for mankind: “Miserable creation of a moment, children of accident and travail, why do you force me to tell you what is not the most profitable for you to hear? What is the very best for you is not attainable by you; that is, not to be born, not to exist, to be nothing. But the second best for you is to die soon.” Ancient Greek art and wisdom sought consolation in the face of life. The servants of Dionysus did not wish to belong to this community of life, but rather to a higher one. For Nietzsche this was expressed in their culture. “In song and dance, the human being expresses himself as a member of a higher community; he has forgotten how to walk and how to speak, and he is about to fly, to dance into the air.” There are two paths for man which lead him over and above existence; in a blessed enchantment, as if in an opium dream, he can forget existence and, “singing and dancing,” feel himself at one with a universal soul; or he can look for his satisfaction in an ideal picture of reality as if in a dream which flutters gently above existence. Nietzsche characterizes these two paths as the Dionysian and the Apollonian soul conditions. But the more recent culture since Socrates has looked for reconciliation with existence, and thereby has lowered the value of mankind. It is no wonder that with such feelings, Nietzsche felt lonely in this more recent culture.
Two personalities seemed to pull him out of this state of loneliness. On his life path he encountered Schopenhauer's conception of the worthlessness of existence, and Richard Wagner. The position he took in relation to these two clearly illuminated the being of his spirit. Toward Schopenhauer he felt a devotion more intimate than can be imagined. And yet Schopenhauer's teachings remained almost without importance for him. The wise one from Frankfurt had innumerable disciples who accepted faithfully what he had to say. But Nietzsche never was one of these believers. At the same time that he sent his pean of praise, Schopenhauer als Erzieher, Schopenhauer as Educator, into the world, he wrote secretly for himself his serious doubts about the philosopher's ideas. He did not look up to him as to a teacher; he loved him like a father. He felt the heroic quality of his thoughts even when he did not agree with them. His relationship to Schopenhauer was too intimate to necessitate an external faith in him or an outer confession. He loved his “educator” so much that he attributed his own thoughts to him in order to be able to revere them in another. He did not want to agree with a personality in his thoughts; he wanted to live in friendship with another. This desire also attracted him to Richard Wagner. What then were all those figures of pre-Socratic Greek culture with whom he had wished to live in friendship? Indeed, they were mere shadows from a far distant past. And Nietzsche aspired to life, to the direct friendship of tragic human beings. Greek culture remained dead and abstract for him, despite all the life his fantasy tried to breathe into it. The Greek intellectual heroes remained for him a yearning; for him Richard Wagner was a fulfillment which tried to re-awaken the old world of Greece within his personality, his art, his world conception. Nietzsche spent most glorious days when from Basel he was allowed to visit the Wagner couple on their Triebschen estate. What the philologist had looked for in spirit, to breathe Greek air, he believed he found here in reality. He could find a personal relationship to a world which previously he had sought in ideas. He could experience intimately what he could otherwise only have conjured before himself in thought. To him the Triebschen idyll was like home. How descriptive are the words with which he describes his feelings in regard to Wagner: “A fruitful, rich, stirring life, quite different and unheard of in more mediocre mortals! For this reason he stands there rooted deeply in his own strength, with his gaze over and above all that is ephemeral; eternal in the most beautiful sense.”
In Richard Wagner's personality Nietzsche believed he had the higher worlds, which could make life as bearable for him as he imagined it to be in the sense of the ancient Greek world conception. But precisely here did he not commit the greatest error in his sense? Indeed he sought in life for what, according to his assumptions life could not offer. He wanted to be above life; and with all his strength he threw himself into the life that Wagner lived. For this reason it is understandable that his greatest experience had to be his deepest disappointment at the same time. To be able to find in Wagner what he was searching for, he had first to magnify the true personality of Wagner to an ideal picture. What Wagner could never be, Nietzsche had made out of him. He did not see and revere the true Wagner; he revered his image, which towered far above reality. Then when Wagner had achieved what he aspired, when he had reached his goal, Nietzsche felt the disharmony between his impression and the true Wagner. And he separated from Wagner. But only he interprets this separation psychologically correctly who recognizes that Nietzsche did not separate from the true Wagner, because he never was his follower; he only saw his deception clearly. What he had looked for in Wagner, he could never find in him because that had nothing to do with Wagner; it had to be freed from all reality as a higher world. Then Nietzsche later characterized the necessity of his apparent separation from Wagner. He says that what in his younger years he had heard in Wagner's music had absolutely nothing to do with Wagner. “When I described the Dionysian music, I described what I had heard; instinctively I had to translate and transfigure everything into the new spirit which I bore within me. The proof of this, as strong as proof as can be, is my book, Wagner in Bayreuth; in all psychologically decisive places one can place my name, or the name Zarathustra wherever the text uses the name Wagner. The complete picture of the dithyrambic artist is the picture of the pre-existentialist poet of Zarathustra, drawn with profound depth, and without really touching the reality of Wagner for a single moment. Wagner himself had an idea of this; he did not recognize himself in the book.”
In Zarathustra Nietzsche sketches the world for which he had searched in vain in Wagner, separated from alt reality. He placed his Zarathustra ideal in a different relationship to reality than his own earlier ideals. He had had bad experiences in his direct turning away from existence. He must have done injustice to this existence, and for this reason it had avenged itself so bitterly against him; this idea gained the upper hand within him more and more. The disappointment which his idealism had caused him, drove him into a hostile mood toward all idealism. During the time following his separation from Wagner, his works become accusations against ideals. “One error after another is placed upon ice; the ideal is not refuted — it freezes to death.” Thus in 1888 he expresses himself about the goal of his book which had appeared in 1878, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, Human, All Too Human. After this Nietzsche looks for refuge in reality; he deepens himself in the more recent natural science, in order that through it he can gain a true guide to reality. All worlds beyond this world, which lead human beings away from reality, now become abominable, remote worlds for him, conceived out of the fantasy of weak human beings, who do not have sufficient strength to find their satisfaction in immediate, fresh existence. Natural science has placed the human being at the end of a purely natural evolution. Through the fact that the latter has conceived the human being out of itself, all that is below him has taken on a higher meaning. Therefore, man should not deny its significance and wish to make himself an image of something beyond this world. He should understand that he is not the meaning of a super-earthly power, but the “meaning of this earth.” What he wishes to attain above what exists, he should not strive for in enmity against what exists. Nietzsche looks within reality itself for the germ of the higher, which is to make reality bearable. Man should not strive toward a divine being; out of his reality he should bring forth a higher way of existence. This reality extends over and above itself. Humanity has the possibility to become superhumanity. Evolution has always been. The human being should also work at evolution. The laws of evolution are greater, more comprehensive than all that has already been developed. One should not only look upon that which exists, but one must go back to primeval forces which have engendered the real. An ancient world conception questioned how “good and evil” came into the world. It believed that it had to go behind existence in order to discover “in the eternal” the reasons for “good and evil.” But with the “eternal,” with the “beyond,” Nietzsche had also to reject the “eternal” evaluation of “good and evil.” Man has come into existence through the natural; and “good and evil” have come into existence with him. The creation of mankind is “good and evil.” And deeper than the created is the creator. The “human being” stands “beyond good and evil.” He has made the one thing to be good, the other to be evil. He may not let himself be chained through his former “good and evil.” He can follow further the path of evolution which he has taken till now. From the worm he has become a human being; from man he can develop to the superman. He can create a new good and evil. He may “reevaluate” present day values. Nietzsche was torn from his work on Umwertung aller Werte, Transvaluation of All Values, through his spiritual darkness. The evolution of the worm to the human being was the idea which he had gained from the more recent natural science. He himself did not become a scientist; he had adopted the idea of evolution from others. For them it was a matter of the intellect; for him it became a matter of the heart. The others waged a spiritual battle against all old prejudices. Nietzsche asked himself how he could live with the new idea. His battle took place entirely within his own soul. He needed the further development to the superman in order to be able to bear mankind.
Thus, by itself, in lonely heights, his sensitive spirit had to overcome the natural science which he had taken into himself. During his last creative period, Nietzsche tried to attain from reality itself what earlier he thought he could gain in illusion, in an ideal realm. Life is assigned a task which is firmly rooted in life, and yet leads over and above this life. In this immediate existence one cannot remain standing in real life, or in the life illuminated by natural science. In this life there also must be suffering. This remained Nietzsche's opinion. The “superman” is also a means to make life bearable. All this points to the fact that Nietzsche was born to “suffer from existence.” His genius consisted in the searching for bases for consolation. The struggle for world conceptions has often engendered martyrs. Nietzsche has produced no new ideas for a world conception. One will always recognize that his genius does not lie in the production of new ideas. But he suffered deeply because of the thoughts surrounding him. In compensation for this suffering he found the enraptured tones of his Zarathustra. He became the poet of the new world conception; the hymns in praise of the “superman” are the personal, the poetic reply to the problems and results of the more recent natural science. All that the nineteenth century produced in ideas, would also have been produced without Nietzsche. In the eyes of the future he will not be considered an original philosopher, a founder of religions, or a prophet; for the future he will be a martyr of knowledge, who in poetry found words with which to express his suffering.

[The Personality of Friedrich Nietzsche, A Memorial Address, Berlin, September 13, 1900]