>Where races are mixed, there is the source of great cultures.
-The Will to Power
>Christianity robbed us of the harvest of the culture of the ancient world, it later went on to rob us of the harvest of the culture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish cultural world of Spain, more closely related to us at bottom, speaking more directly to our senses and taste, than Greece and Rome, was trampled down (—I do not say by what kind of feet—): why? because it was noble, because it owed its origin to manly instincts, because it said Yes to life even in the rare and exquisite treasures of Moorish life!… Later on, the Crusaders fought against something they would have done better to lie down in the dust before—a culture compared with which even our nineteenth century may well think itself very impoverished and very ‘late.’—They wanted booty, to be sure: the Orient was rich…. But let us not be prejudiced! The Crusades—higher piracy, that is all! German knighthood, Viking Knighthood at bottom, was there in its element: the Church knew only too well what German knighthood can be had for…. The German knights, always the ‘Switzers’ of the Church, always in the service of all the bad instincts of the Church—but well paid…. That it is precisely with the aid of German swords, German blood and courage, that the Church has carried on its deadly war against everything noble on earth! A host of painful questions arises at this point. The German aristocracy is virtually missing in the history of higher culture: one can guess the reason…. Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.
-The Antichrist
Was he right?
>The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in his body––that is to say, contrary, and often not contrary, instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another and are seldom at peace––such a man of late culture and broken lights, will, on an average, be a weak man
what did he mean by this?
>>7684799
It means he thought race was a social construct that should be abolished.
>>7684810
>It means he thought race was a social construct
But it isn't, anon
>>7684826
For Nietzsche is was. There were only men and supermen (like Mohammed or Napoleon).
>>7684826
I'll agree to disagree.
Didn't Nietzsche say in zarathustra that culture was a fault? Or something like that? He said "culture is the word people give to their pride" or something like that, if I recall.
>>7685902
That would be a very stupid thing to say.
It's related to his understanding of Hellenic culture - the early greeks adopted & adapted the cultures of the people that previously inhabited the peninsula. All except Sparta, who instead dominated & oppressed (& had helots & peons etc). Only the Spartans, of all the greek states failed to produce anything of worth in terms of culture. Therefore, according to Nietzsche, mixing 'race' which he saw as a construct & pretty much interchangeable with culture, was a good thing.
I think mixing two things can produce something new, or it can turn to shit. It depends which things you are planning on mixing.
>>7685233
>i'd wager the man to be stronger for it.
based on what
>>7684810
Yeah, no. That he appreciated other races other than his own doesn't mean that he didn't acknowledge the fact of the existence of races. On the contrary. he certainly thought that there were inferior races (see Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols). The Jews weren't one of the inferior ones, they just were responsible for one of the greatest inversion of values in human history (slave morality), but in the posthumous Will to Power he acknowledges that many things he said about the Jews (such as priestly mendacity) could well be said about the Aryans too. It didn't stop him from claiming, in the same book, that the Aryan can only be the master wherever he is found tough. This was Nietzsche, if you want a post-modern race relativist look somewhere else
