No danger no order of rank no race and culture

People will consider here this to be a "deification of Nietzsche" and whatever you say positive about him will lead into this conclusion or into that he was mad and had a genital sickness. But nobody will take a scientific historical look into the human cultures (not even knowing to define what culture is) and so they will lose the possibility to see future by looking back. Even their own future which is very foreseeable.

Let's take an example of a foreseeable future (Cliodynamics):
youtu.be/40HKl2huUI4?t=473
And even if I don't agree entirely with this possible scenario, I have a similar one which also relies on the political movements from the past. It is typical that conservatives are democrats and are only interested in money and those who have it. They imagine a threat by those who have money against those who don't and so they don't seek truth, order of rank or defense of race but ... money.

262.

A species originates, and a type becomes established and strong in the long struggle with essentially constant unfavorable conditions. On the other hand, it is known by the experience of breeders that species which receive super-abundant nourishment, and in general a surplus of protection and care, immediately tend in the most marked way to develop variations, and are fertile in prodigies and monstrosities (also in monstrous vices). Now look at an aristocratic commonwealth, say an ancient Greek polis, or Venice, as a voluntary or involuntary contrivance for the purpose of rearing human beings; there are there men beside one another, thrown upon their own resources, who want to make their species prevail, chiefly because they must prevail, or else run the terrible danger of being exterminated. The favor, the superabundance, the protection are there lacking under which variations are fostered; the species needs itself as species, as something which, precisely by virtue of its hardness, its uniformity, and simplicity of structure, can in general prevail and make itself permanent in constant struggle with its neighbors, or with rebellious or rebellion-threatening vassals. The most varied experience teaches it what are the qualities to which it principally owes the fact that it still exists, in spite of all Gods and men, and has hitherto been victorious: these qualities it calls virtues, and these virtues alone it develops to maturity. It does so with severity, indeed it desires severity; every aristocratic morality is intolerant in the education of youth, in the control of women, in the marriage customs, in the relations of old and young, in the penal laws (which have an eye only for the degenerating): it counts intolerance itself among the virtues, under the name of "justice." A type with few, but very marked features, a species of severe, warlike, wisely silent, reserved, and reticent men (and as such, with the most delicate sensibility for the charm and nuances of society) is thus established, unaffected by the vicissitudes of generations; the constant struggle with uniform unfavorable conditions is, as already remarked, the cause of a type becoming stable and hard. Finally, however, a happy state of things results, the enormous tension is relaxed; there are perhaps no more enemies among the neighboring peoples, and the means of life, even of the enjoyment of life, are present in super abundance. With one stroke the bond and constraint of the old discipline severs: it is no longer regarded as necessary, as a condition of existence—if it would continue, it can only do so as a form of luxury, as an archaizing taste.Variations, whether they be deviations (into the higher, finer, and rarer), or deteriorations and monstrosities, appear suddenly on the scene in the greatest exuberance and splendor; the individual dares to be individual and detach himself. At this turning-point of history there manifest themselves, side by side, and often mixed and entangled together, a magnificent, manifold, virgin-forest-like up-growth and up-striving, a kind of tropical tempo in the rivalry of growth, and an extraordinary decay and self-destruction, owing to the savagely opposing and seemingly exploding egoisms, which strive with one an other "for sun and light," and can no longer assign any limit, restraint, or forbearance for themselves by means of the hitherto existing morality. It was this morality itself which piled up the strength so enormously, which bent the bow in so threatening a manner:—it is now "out of date," it is getting "out of date." The dangerous and disquieting point has been reached when the greater, more manifold, more comprehensive life is lived beyond the old morality; the "individual" stands out, and is obliged to have recourse to his own law-giving, his own arts and artifices for self-preservation, self-elevation, and self-deliverance. Nothing but new "Whys," nothing but new "Hows," no common formulas any longer, misunderstanding and disregard in league with each other, decay, deterioration, and the loftiest desires frightfully entangled, the genius of the race overflowing from all the cornucopias of good and bad, a portentous simultaneousness of Spring and Autumn, full of new charms and mysteries peculiar to the fresh, still inexhausted, still unwearied corruption. Danger is again present, the mother of morality, great danger; this time shifted into the individual, into the neighbor and friend, into the street, into their own child, into their own heart, into all the most personal and secret recesses of their desires and volitions. What will the moral philosophers who appear at this time have to preach? They discover, these sharp onlookers and loafers, that the end is quickly approaching, that everything around them decays and produces decay, that nothing will endure until the day after to-morrow, except one species of man, the incurably mediocre. The mediocre alone have a prospect of continuing and propagating themselves—they will be the men of the future, the sole survivors; "be like them! become mediocre!" is now the only morality which has still a significance, which still obtains a hearing.— But it is difficult to preach this morality of mediocrity! it can never avow what it is and what it desires! it has to talk of moderation and dignity and duty and brotherly love—it will have difficulty in concealing its irony!—

Don't feel embarrassed about your obsession/addiction to Nietzsche. you are among the majority of post-modern 'intellectual' young males.
Jews love him because of his attacks on their challenger Christianity, and in a Nihilistic age it's to be expected that his prose would echo in the spirits of boys looking for guidance and an identity, lost.
Missing father-figures, or poor examples of them; degradation of culture - Americanism as the culture-of-no-culture selling its 'ideal' as a Global ideology - single mothers raising children in broken family structures - where homosexual couples can now claim it as their own institution - propagating a lostness - no sense of identity - no real presence to bring balance to the fantasies this triggers in immature minds - and on and on.
This is the norm, in the west.
Things will get worse, before they begin getting better.

Can you give me an example of how Nietzsche was 'dangerous' as you've understood him and how you define the term? Then tell em how you are striving to becoming 'dangerous', under the circumstances.

Now its you me and them and who gets the bigger piece?
WTP 131: why renaissance started. If your kind is not perishing then you don't need renaissance.
And no, they were not "Alt-Right", "Conservative" 'n' sht. Only nobility by BLOOD.

Kings are dangerous, conservatives are simply dangerously boring!
From another site:

Quote :

The man has several ages in his existence in which only one age is "right" - the ripe age - where he can express his whole potential and make little mistakes. As Nietzsche said at the age of 40 the man is at the peak of his power. Karl Friedrich Vollgraff calls the ripe age between 42 and 70. When a state is in such an age it is called Republic. After that comes the elderly age with all its fails and flaws - democracy. It does not come suddenly but gradually, so that people are still capable to work and earn money in jobs where they are experienced until finally the economy perishes giving up and opening doors first to medical care workers and then also to all kind of foreign workers.

Quote :

There can be no return to any of the previous stages, because either you will lose all the knowledge and culture by returning to the age of monarchy (stage of the child - children like war) or you will have to make a compromise and form a society where knowledge is kept but monarchy rises again - the philosopher king. This stage if organized well (not like Plato) will lead into a higher species.

Quote :

Republics exist only as long as the ripening takes place. The ripening is equal as bringing up, teaching, optimizing. Young people usually have ideas and write books until 40+. But when ripening is over a softening occurs. Parts of the body decay, fertility drops. Fertility is closely bound to danger. A ripe strong man has little enemies. People avoid him. Also learning depends on danger. (One best learns wisdom in the shool of suffering - Aeshylus) So, there are things which form our being including that 'environment' which is danger. And therefore it will be impossible to 'return' to any previous stage of culture. The aging is irreversible, just as everything in nature is. There can only be a new beginning. Which means as an attempt, starting from a small germ and seed. Vatican was meant to be such a new start, you see how difficult it is.

No "pieces"...only questions.
How was Nietzsche 'dangerous' and subsequently how did you emulate him to become 'dangerous'?

Otherwise it's all vague rhetoric.
If you want to convince anyone to follow your lead, then you must offer a tangible example....or is it all theoretical?

In my mind there's many forms of 'dangerousness' corresponding to the triadastic essence of the human spirit, in the Platonic sense: mind/body/nervous system - reason/will/pathos - as there are three types of need, e.g., need proper, based on lack - experience of existing; desire, based on excess, as a by-product of need - libidinal - expressed through procreation and creativity, i.e., art - and want - socially fabricated needs/desires (memetic) meant to manipulate and control the individual - socially fabricated using semiotics.

I suspect there are three context to being dangerous....and you only focus on the simpler, the physical.
I told you in private, how this 'enemy' is 'like no other'. you cannot fight him like hoards of Turks at the gates of Constantinople; you cannot attack them physically, with sword and shield, because they are a feminine, insidious, memetic kind of enemy. you've simply failed to identify the enemy...and only see the Muslim hoards steaming into Europe......when they were INVITED, and they did not invade.
If it were a matter of weaponry and armies Europe would have nothing to fear from Islam.

There's no 'return' to a previous state....the past is immutable and time travel is impossible.
One can only preserve what needs to be preserved of the past, using it to guide you in adapting it to the present, or to project it towards the future, as an objective.
Here, too, a triad exists: past/present/future - immutable past - mutating present- undetermined future.

Nature = past
Nurturing = present/presence, interpreter as appearance.
Ideal = future, i.e., objective, goal, destination. An orienting projection, helping the will focus organic energies.

Nihilists exists only in the present, projecting towards the future, with no past to limit their projections - imagination freed from reality is called fantasy.
Animals are the inverse - they are past made present unable to projecting into future - plants being an extreme example of an organism with past - DNA - and a presence, but with no conception of a future.
Nihilists are an inversion of animal nature - manimals.

You've come to the party...late...en retard.

I was the one who said 'anxiety/fear' was the 'mother of all emotions' and they fell upon me, the ones most governed by it, to devour me.
I was the one who said, according to the Greeks, that life is agon, i.e., war......and the cosmos is both what makes life possible and what threatens it - therefore Nietzsche describes this dissonance as resentiment, and described a theoretical 'overman' that has overcome this resentment.
Cosmos is dangerous....threatening to all life, because it is - fluctuating, interacting - and life NEEEEEEDSS order, i.e., consistency, predictability, certainty, reliability - ORDER - Cosmos is order AND chaos - Yin/Yang....properly defined as randomness; not the bullshyte about complexity, alluding to an Abrahamic 'omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient' absolute order, i.e., one-God, singularity, absolute one.
Complexity simply makes order obscure.....hidden, occult; a universe described as a totalitarian state, and life as slavery, eternal incarceration, a circular prison cell.
It is in agreement with Abrahamism.  
I was the one who reminded all of what Schopenhauer said about pleasure - it being negative - and how suffering/ennui was the normal state of man; suffering is a momentary distracting, relief from the normal state of experiencing existing as consistent need/suffering. Comfort is a state where needs are easily and automatically gratified, freeing the mind from the body's demands - habituation with need/suffering increases the possibility for the state of comfort....weird huh? - like exercise - regular stress - increases the possibility for comfort, state of not being troubled by need/suffering.

Your 'danger' is just a boy's attempt to inject excitement in his otherwise mundane, safe, predictable life.
I'm not discouraging you....every revolution needs soldiers...not only generals.

Are these 'dangerous' ideas?
Are they not to the coward and needy desperate degenerate?

I repeat...in nature animals avoid danger, because life is overly unpredictable for them....it is only man, who creates artificial safe-zones - cities - who dreams of danger, and becoming dangerous....like boys who have never experiences warfare dream of war, like in action films....when it's mostly 'boredom interspersed with moments of absolute terror' as someone said. Forgot who.

The man who found the positive in everything, everyone, once said "They would make good cannon fodder."

Refer to Dostoevsky’s protagonist of Crime and Punishment. The act of danger in and of itself leads to the rationalization that it was a form of Will to power, in and of itself, with no rationale. This is what happens in the method of intellectualism. The protagonist himself attempts to justify his act of murder, using the modern aberration of violence for the sake of violence, to be above the system of morality, because he is a marginalized nobody seeking self-worth through shock and awe, the shock and awe of himself; attempting to smash through his inferiority with mindless grandiosity because he cannot overcome it otherwise. A delusional aristocracy, rooted to nothing real except the thrill of the act.

You are hopeless. You reject history as the arbitrary point of agreement. You never learn from history. I can not help you. Anything that does not answer your distracting questions is "rhetorical". That is too poor. I am not mouth for these ears.

Cool....but you still haven't answered my questions.
How was Nietzsche 'dangerous', in your mind, and how are you emulating him?
How are you 'dangerous'?
Help me, and those who are reading, become 'dangerous', like you claim to be.

Anyone who knows anything about my views knows what I think of history and how central it in them.
Your redirection was clumsy.

You first PMed me, unable to 'risk' being 'dangerous' or risk being placed in 'danger'....now you just declare, and when I ask you questions you evade.
How does this make you 'dangerous'?
How can you ever hope to become 'dangerous' when you fail to even get respect?

Respect is also founded on fear, and inspiring fear - related to being 'dangerous'.

Slaughtz wrote:

The man who found the positive in everything, everyone, once said "They would make good cannon fodder."

Unfortunately the loss of distinction between the priest, soldier and farmer, has resulted in this Democratic mess.
All think they have something philosophical to contribute, like a soldier believing he has advice on strategy to offer the generals.

We need simple soldiers - grunts - to do the hard work, but they cannot think, so when we tell them they can, this causes problems.
Priests love to manipulate these types.

A soldier's motto ought to be sought in Tennyson's words...

Kvasir wrote:

Refer to Dostoevsky’s protagonist of Crime and Punishment. The act of danger in and of itself leads to the rationalization that it was a form of Will to power, in and of itself, with no rationale. This is what happens in the method of intellectualism. The protagonist himself attempts to justify his act of murder, using the modern aberration of violence for the sake of violence, to be above the system of morality, because he is a marginalized nobody seeking self-worth through shock and awe, the shock and awe of himself; attempting to smash through his inferiority with mindless grandiosity because he cannot overcome it otherwise. A delusional aristocracy, rooted to nothing real except the thrill of the act.

So, 'danger' refers to a behaviour, or a thought, that contradicts the foundations of conventional thinking and behaving, risking the cohesion of an established order.

To appear 'dangerous' to another you must gain 'respect' as I defined it: threaten to take away from another what he needs, i.e., his life - physical danger - your friendship - emotional danger - his wealth - economic danger - his sense of well-being, meaning, purpose etc. - spiritual danger.

Dostoevsky's 'Idiot' was dangerous to those he came in contact with, exposing them to their hypocrisies and their won nature; he threatened their flattering opinion of themselves, making himself vulnerable to their inner vileness.

Anything that threatens a groups established convictions - even if they are delusional and hypocritical - more so when they are - is 'dangerous' to that group.

How does one become 'dangerous'?
In the physical context and in the mental context, one accumulates the potentials to harm, or to withhold, what another needs.
So a weightlifter accumulates mass - in the form of muscle - as a potential to do physical harm to another....keeping it under control, but always present as a possibility.
This accumulated potential is what makes him dangerous.

In the context of mind - spirit - a mind can accumulate awareness - knowledge understanding, insights - that make him/her dangerous to another's spiritual well-being.

Exactly why Nietzsche has been regarded by moderns and scholars as a "dangerous thinker".

And why young males, unable to become respected, or desperately wanting to be respected - thought of as 'dangerous' - admire him to the point of making him an idol.

His only contribution - other than beautiful prose - was his diagnosis of Nihilism among Moderns, threatening the status quo and triggering the natural 'rebelliousness' of young males who have a natural impulse to challenge authority and to replace it with their own.
Authority, among humans, requires '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]' and respect is based on intimidation - on anxiety/fear.  
Fear of withholding what the individual needs/desires, or even is trained to want.

Young males covet 'respect' - the gropu's collective appreciation of his value (esteem) - raising his reproductive options.
Danger is another way of being esteemed highly, as a possible source of withholding something the group or the individual needs/desires; most often his/her physical and mental well-being.

Anxiety/Fear is the basis of authority, the mother of all emotions, and the root of social instincts - fear of otherness - the unknown, the threatening alien.

A father's authority is based no the anxiety, a child may feel, about losing his guidance, and/or his emotionally stabilizing presence - his standing before child and world as the child's proxy.
This is carried forth into Abrahamism that replaces the 'father' with their 'father in the beyond' - an abstraction of the father-figure - some never grow up or want to grow up.

Surpassing or even equaling a parent is unnerving. One necessarily covets that protection. In the case of increased awareness, it becomes even worse: realizing dangers a parental figure didn't. Struggling to give vision to the parent, whom is scattered and lost as with Osiris. The idea of abandoning a parent, as a child, to a new world they never fought or cared to prevent except manimalistically is confusing. One risks a lot to give vision to those who are most culpable. And one is never unconcerned primitively of the welfare of their parents. Very tangential to all this, though.

Its inevitable for impressionable and weak minds when they are exposed to what is stronger than they are, to be taken in by illusions. Nietzsche's tragedy was that he, brilliantly, harmonized metaphor with reason; simplicity with complexity. This is confusing for the generations of academics and lay-intellectuals and general idiots alike when they start taking everything he said literally, like Christians do with the book of revelation. Could he have helped himself? No. He was just a man and a writer who liked to think.

Nietzsche was concerned with one thing; the self and how it interacts with the world and with abstractions and every form of vaguery, made-made or otherwise, that impedes its potential.

Peter Sloterdijk is good reading on the Nietzsche analysis subject. His take on Nietzsche was that he was a catastrophe in the history of language.

Kvasir wrote:

Its inevitable for impressionable and weak minds when they are exposed to what is stronger than they are, to be taken in by illusions. Nietzsche's tragedy was that he, brilliantly, harmonized metaphor with reason; simplicity with complexity. This is confusing for the generations of academics and lay-intellectuals and general idiots alike when they start taking everything he said literally, like Christians do with the book of revelation. Could he have helped himself? No. He was just a man and a writer who liked to think.

Yes...

Kvasir wrote:

Nietzsche was concerned with one thing; the self and how it interacts with the world and with abstractions and every form of vaguery, made-made or otherwise, that impedes its potential.

He was a literature professor, after all.

Kvasir wrote:

Peter Sloterdijk is good reading on the Nietzsche analysis subject. His take on Nietzsche was that he was a catastrophe in the history of language.

Really?
In what book?
This is in line with my own analysis of language.
Flowery language - prose, overly indulging in metaphor and allegories - is a method of masking 'dangerous' ideas - controversial topics - or a method of masking nonsense - see Old and New testament, and the predictive writing of Nostradamus.
It seduces the young wench, wanting to be swept away, and the small man-child, still not mature enough to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.  

Light, produces clarity - it differentiates and discriminates. In the twilight is where shadows merge all into a uniformity, and the mind goes wild with speculation, predictively siding with whatever satisfies the ego - the preferred environment for parasites and charlatans....and for women, who wish to immerse themselves into a romantic fairy-tale, hiding their blemishes; a state that permits the mind to release itself within fantasy, with no reality to contradict it.

As you know the corrution of language is the premise of my definition of Nihilism - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Language that discredits all thinking and makes of language itself a trivial nonsensical tool for escape.
Wittgenstein, of course went into it, but he did so to discredit all philosophy, as a way of slandering language, the tool of expressing and symbolising concepts - reducing the population's respect and trust in language - a dumbing-down.

I read a rebuttal describing his motives as climbing onto a roof, using a ladder - language - and then pushing the ladder down, trapping the mind on the idealistic heights, unable to 'bring himself back down to earth'.

My entire mission is to maintain the contact with the earth, returning the ladder back to its original place, performing its original function.

Freud, Marx, Saul, Wittgenstein,the Frankfurt School are all part of the same methodology of undermining European philosophical traditions, and culture.

Satyr wrote:

Kvasir wrote:

Peter Sloterdijk is good reading on the Nietzsche analysis subject. His take on Nietzsche was that he was a catastrophe in the history of language.

Really?
In what book?
This is in line with my own analysis of language.

Two books by him. Check out "Nietzsche Apostle". And "Thinker on Stage". I liked the latter better. He delves into the birth of tragedy and pays more credence to his writing as it evolved.

I have both in e-book format....haven't gotten around to reading them.

I told him it is necessary to take over dangerous professions but he can't discuss without his fans. He can't take over professions like army, police, security...
All civilizations have perished while giving up this professions to foreign nations and hordes and so will the European civilization finish too. This is the testimony of HISTORY, if you want good to culture and civilization in general, you will seek danger and ways to take over that which threatens to destroy what you consider as yours.
The turks were employed as mercenaries around 1000 AD by the Byzantines, 400+ years later they crushed them.
Germans were employed perhaps since 100 AD by the Romans, 250 years later they were crushed by them. And so on. But poor common people can not explore history because they are terrified by their poverty and the need to watch where the money comes from.

Who's 'he'? Is it me....how condescending. I'm hurt.

All civilizations are the end phase of cultures - they are harbingers of a coming decline - a height that begins to tumble downward. Basic Spengler.
All you offer are trivial history lessons.
Still nothing about Nietzsche's 'dangerousness' and your own acceptance of the idol's call to 'danger'.
How will you 'take over' professions like the 'police and army?
I went to the army...served for two years...what about you?
Will you become dangerous because you pose a physical threat? What's the plan? Help me be inspired.
Be a leader!!!

No hoards at the gate....this is a different kind of war, fought agaisnt a different, more feminine and insidious, foe. A memetic war. Fought over hearts and minds, not directly about wenches, wealth and territories.
There are many ways to become 'dangerous', and sword and shield is one that is not very effective in this kind of warfare....though it may become necessary.
This is a noetic, ideological kind of war....where the 'enemy' is usually one of your own racial and tribal fellows, taken over, assimilated within a mental virus, i.e. nihilistic ideology.
The 'enemy' fights through proxies, using psychological warfare - hybrid warfare, thy call it.
The hoards are mindless zombies that have been infected linguistically with nonsense, converting them to diseased bloodthirsty masses; mindless automatons.

If you do not answer, after this final attempt, I'll have to bid you bon chance and....
Ta, Ta,

p.s.
Let's declare you the victor so you can retain your image of 'dangerousness', shall we?

Ok, stay Muppet then. Stick with your LAN (Local Area Network) and be mistrustful to foreigners. Ask questions and offer no solutions. Enjoy your dangerous Memicing.