He seemed quite at home in Development & Technical Discussion originally, yet he has not made a single post there since returning to the forum a month ago.

It’s good to see that some people still believe in reading books, rather than simply Googling for unfamiliar words:


I myself have not yet made it through all of his sixteen books.  That takes awhile, together with comprehending the nineteenth-century social-historical context against which e.g. he prefaced The Will to Power, “What I am now going to relate is the history of the next two centuries.  I shall describe what will happen, what must necessarily happen: the triumph of nihilism.”

Also apropos hereof, with boldface supplied:



I intended to do exactly that, yesterday, with my reply to johhnyUA.  The greatest substance thereof was written immediately; but I decided to gather some supporting pictures, so as to aid comprehension by those who don’t read.  Will do, and link from here.

P.S.—

---

Edit, P.P.S.—I missed this on an initial skim over foolishness:


I was waiting for some thoughtless nitwit to accuse me of following the pseudointellectual pretender known as “Ayn Rand”.  No, I do not.  I pass that judgment after having read all of her published works, and then regretting the waste of my time.

I’ve never read Rothbard.  Thus, I can’t very well be advocating for his ideas, much less pushing them as “dogma”.

I enjoy being hypercorrected by pretentious morons who neither grasp (not-so-)subtle double entendre, nor even know the definitions of basic English words:


(Aside:  The sense of sexual coupling is actually a euphemism; the denotations of “dealings, communication; interchange of thoughts” are original.  Source:  My own knowledge of etymology.  Go get your own education, you degenerate anti-intellectual.)


Actually, it is German.  Per the mighty Duden:



The correct spelling is “Nietzsche”.  And what did I say about the vulgarity meter?  It shows that I hit where it hurts:  Directly upon your own sense of jealous inferiority.  The Sklavenmoral does suit you, after all.  No wonder you are such a zealot for empathy.  You need it, and also its incestuous twin:  Pity.

[...]

The foregoing is merely the application of a principle which grade-α philologist Nietzsche had laid when he wooed Truth’s virgin sister, Wisdom, in his previous book, Also sprach Zarathustra:



The great truths of this world are oft concealed in the twisting of language.  A warrior-philologist is armed with the sword to slice through this Gordian knot; and in the famous Beyond Good and Evil aphorism that later gave the starting point for his Zur Genealogie der Moral, Nietzsche discovered two separate moral dichotomies:

• The dichotomy between “good” and “bad” (“gut” and “schlecht”) in the sense of “noble” versus “despicable”; this, he termed the Master-Morality (Herren-Moral), which he exemplified in the self-glorifying pride of ancient aristocrats:  “...it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful.  ‘We truthful ones’ [‘Wir Wahrhaftigen’] the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves.”  I observe that whereas the Homeric heroes may merrily invade Troy, seize its treasures and women, and burn it to the ground, they would never scam you.  Scamming would be despicable, schlecht, bad.  (Cf. Zur Genealogie der Moral, pp. 21–22.)
• The dichotomy between “good” and “evil” (“gut” and “böse”) in the sense of “sympathetic” versus “dangerous”, which he termed the Slave-Morality (Sklaven-Moral).  It is the morality of resentment by persons of inferior quality, by which they demand that those stronger than themselves must abandon their strength for humility.  In Bitcoin Forum terms, it is the morality of those who demand empathy for “please Sir give merits or my whole family will starve to death” types—or those who are so enraged about being denied “lucrative bounties” that they develop paranoid ideations about a “DT Chipmixer mafia”.

He further observes that “good” in the Master-Morality is “evil” in the Slave-Morality, and “good” in the Slave-Morality is “bad” in the Master-Morality (e.g., liberals and Christians).  In my own words, the former is a morality of pride, and the latter is a morality of utility:  A morality of ability serving needs, thus that “the meek shall inherit the earth”.

Shame on you for cherry-picking a quote, and leveraging that to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward someone who has freely given extraordinary amounts of time to helping newbies, squashing predatory scammers, and fighting spam.  I don’t wonder why your reply picked on that, instead of this:


I am also unsurprised that you argued with one line out of a discussion, whilst conveniently avoiding all I said in my own far more detailed substantive response.


Yours is.  Moreover, the whole notion of “empathy” is disgusting.  It is nothing more than an emotional blank cheque demanded by the weak and incompetent on those who are not so.  It is the distilled essence of the Sklavenmoral.  But as all such things, it is a poison which acts only against those who choose to drink it.  Repudiate the concept, and it is as powerless as its preachers.