NationStates Jolt Archive

I hold these truths to be painfully self evident:

-All men are not created equal
-A higher type of human beings shows itself from time to time - compared to which, other humans seem like spineless weaklings, like sheep.
-This higher type of human beings is the only humans fit to rule other human beings - have you ever seen a herd of sheep rule itself? Only towards stagnation; they lie down or stand there grazing. So it is with humans.
-Then, who should lead; the herd or the sheperd? The sheperd, of course. Democracy is thus a failure, it is what the nether-humans have created to rule the upper-humans. The upper-humans are looked down upon because the nether-humans fear them and have created their own values against them.
-When has anything even remotely good come from weakness? Never. If anything, weakness has created every problem we have.
-Yet we accept weakness and pity those who carry it. This pity is the emblem of socialism; it is a poison which protects anything and everything which is to weak to live and should be left to die. Pity is anti-evolutionary if anything ever was.

Yes, that's why United States always has been and always will be a third world backwater, and why Emporer Mao is the ruler of the world.

nether-humans
you couldnt spell "untermenschen", huh?

I hold these truths to be painfully self evident:

-All men are not created equal
-A higher type of human beings shows itself from time to time - compared to which, other humans seem like spineless weaklings, like sheep.
-This higher type of human beings is the only humans fit to rule other human beings - have you ever seen a herd of sheep rule itself? Only towards stagnation; they lie down or stand there grazing. So it is with humans.
-Then, who should lead; the herd or the sheperd? The sheperd, of course. Democracy is thus a failure, it is what the nether-humans have created to rule the upper-humans. The upper-humans are looked down upon because the nether-humans fear them and have created their own values against them.
-When has anything even remotely good come from weakness? Never. If anything, weakness has created every problem we have.
-Yet we accept weakness and pity those who carry it. This pity is the emblem of socialism; it is a poison which protects anything and everything which is to weak to live and should be left to die. Pity is anti-evolutionary if anything ever was.

Fan of Wagner?

I agree! Let us band together and forge an empire to destroy the more technologically advanced, more militaristacallillyilly capable and the more patriotic United States!

I don't think you understand. Firstly, Mao is dead. Secondly he wasn't an emporer (actually it spells emperor), he was the leader of the socialist party, which brings us to number 3: socialism is mentioned in the text. Four: democracy didn't make the United States great - liberalism (which i support), natural resources and hard work (which needs strength) is what made the U.S. a leading country in the world. It wouldn't be so if it was a socialist country.

I cant really understand whatever you're trying to say so I would like someone with a better grasp of writing skills to translate for me...

Fan of Wagner?

Kinda. I'm into Nietzsche actually. They used to be friends, but as Wagner turned nationalist they grdually became more hostile towards each other to the point of enmity.

you couldnt spell "untermenschen", huh?

I don't expect everybody to understand German but that's pretty much what i meant, yeah.

-A higher type of human beings shows itself from time to time - compared to which, other humans seem like spineless weaklings, like sheep.


please give me an example of such a higher being :rolleyes:

-This higher type of human beings is the only humans fit to rule other human beings - have you ever seen a herd of sheep rule itself? Only towards stagnation; they lie down or stand there grazing. So it is with humans.
Again any sort of example would be nice

-Yet we accept weakness and pity those who carry it. This pity is the emblem of socialism; it is a poison which protects anything and everything which is to weak to live and should be left to die. Pity is anti-evolutionary if anything ever was.

Am I detecting a certian bias here I will wait for further poof but hey

you couldnt spell "untermenschen", huh?

very good two points for that girl for humour and Irony

Sig Heil

(hmm where does all this sound familiar?)

Kinda. I'm into Nietzsche actually. They used to be friends, but as Wagner turned nationalist they grdually became more hostile towards each other to the point of enmity.



Nietzsche still has people who believe him? Wow, everyone mark this historic day on your calendars.

Way to go Azerate! You have finally understood the thing!
I have been searching men like you for years now, as I am, as everyone who has ever seen me can easily tell, Over Human. That's because im so intelligent and strong. And cool. Now, start to obey me, follow my rules and kill those i dislike, and you will gain a place in the heaven. This is the way the nature, or God, or whatever - I don't give a shit as long as you obey me - ment it to be, right? Soon we'll have a perfect world, all we need is that most of those Lower Humans understand these simple facts and comes under my flag. Then we can enslave and slaughter the rest! Yippee!

yar! methinks this be a troll. Although stranger types have shown up here. *cough Red Arrow, cough*

Azerate, I have a question for you. What exactly do you consider to be an under-human?

Nietzsche still has people who believe him? Wow, everyone mark this historic day on your calendars.

Marked. June 13, 2005, the day my faith in humanity dwindled just a little more.

A troll i am lest a troll i become.

This was an experiment, to seee how certain right-wing ideas would be accepted in an online environment. I do read nietzsche but i do not carry these ideas, not seriously - have a nice day, folks!

By the way sig heil (sieg heil actually) means "stay healthy". good helth was important to the nazis.

A troll i am lest a troll i become.

This was an experiment, to seee how certain right-wing ideas would be accepted in an online environment. I do read nietzsche but i do not carry these ideas, not seriously - have a nice day, folks!

By the way sig heil (sieg heil actually) means "stay healthy". good helth was important to the nazis.

My personal opinion - people will not care what you think but if you try an idea like this I hope ure not gonna stay here long. People for some reason find Racism annoying can't think why :rolleyes:

My personal opinion - people will not care what you think but if you try an idea like this I hope ure not gonna stay here long. People for some reason find Racism annoying can't think why :rolleyes:

Racism? Did i mention races anywhere, or the possibility that any race or ethnicity was better than another? No. I was talking about "type of person", not "color of skin".

Racism? Did i mention races anywhere, or the possibility that any race or ethnicity was better than another? No. I was talking about "type of person", not "color of skin".


You mentioned the possibility that some humans are better than others. Thus, they immediately leapt to the conclusion that you are a supremacist of some form, and from there, leapt just as quickly to the belief that you must believe certain levels of skin pigment indicate a greater state of physical or psychological being.


In any case, these ARE basic truths. Some humans are, in fact, better than others. And for those who need examples, there's some kids who've been born without arms, and they will never, ever, be as physically capable as, say, what I could become. That's a simple fact. They are at a natural disadvantage, and as such, they are 'less' capable than I am. Now, if you don't want developmental disorders, then we'll try something else. How about...genetic disorders?

"Gee whiz, Billy, those crab hands could net you a job at the Carnival! You could be...Lobster Boy! I sure wish I could be Lobster Boy!" Nuh-uh. Billy, or LB as we'll call him, has a disease that made his hands grow into...pincers, for lack of a better word. It's fairly rare, but the mutation happens now and again. It is also, if I remember correctly, dominant, which is why when someone has it it's very likely that their kids will, too. Actually, I'm reminded of this one documentary I saw on TV. I think it was E!...but I'm straying from the topic.

Hey, let's give LB some extra fluid in his skull, and maybe a slightly malformed heart, just because we want to make his life more difficult. Tell me that LB is no less important than a man who's grown to 6'4", who possesses a strong immune system and a natural knack for, well, everything. You can't. The latter person is clearly superior, and would likely be better at whatever it does. Now, obviously, the human I mentioned is better off than most. He would be an example of a 'better' human being, and LB would be an example of a 'lower' human being. Simple.

For those who don't believe that some people are better than others, we'll go this route. None of you will be as mathmatically apt as Einstein, or possess the overall intelligence of Hawking. They are, therefore, superior in that way to you. People accept this claim because it's true, and simple, which makes it difficult for them to BS their way around.
We shall now note that few of you are as physically healthy OR as good at basketball as, say, Michael Jordan. The man's a born athlete, clearly better built.
Now, following this line of logic, it's easy to deduce that superior human beings must, therefore, exist. We have physically superior, and intellectually superior. It's not exactly a long shot to get humans who are superior on both fronts.

Thus, better humans.

We also have humans who are inferiorior in some ways. LB isn't so good at basketball, 'cause he's got crab hands and a heart condition. I really don't think I need to carry this explanation any further, though I'm sure someone's going to pipe in with some snide comment using some absurd arguement cliche', like "how would YOU like to be treated like an inferior?!" or some rot. Honestly, people act as though a person's feelings somehow changed basic fact.

ahhh Nietzche... like a breath of fresh, slightly crazy, certainly evil air. So refreshing. I too enjoy Nietzche. As evidence of what humanity must never ever allow himself to believe.

But you might want an example? Maybe, hmmm, Nazi Germany. That's a good example. Your over-men not only killed 10 million human beings systematically, but then proved their own doctrines wrong, by losing the war. Well, damn, why is that? I would have to say that because the idea that there are people who deserve the obedience of others because of some percieved superiority and whose duty it is to oppose and destroy weakness is an infinitely fallible and ultimately incorrect idea, which brushes very close to the abyss that is rare, true, unadulterated evil.

As to your comments on Socialism, I cannot even reply.

If these are truly your beliefs... I can only hope that you find your way out of the darkness you mire in. Hatred and destruction is not the answer - may the evolutionary theory be damned before they are.

Really?

So what is it? Bible-basher or jesus-hugger? A little bit of both, maybe? They usually condemn the evolutionary theory because it conflicts with their creation myth, but in this case it is condemned because of the conflict with their morals... truly interesting....

Christianity, like socialism, has always teamed up with the weak, the lowly, the foolish and the unlearned. No wonder why; it was originally a jewish reformation sect among the poor and unfortunate in the Roman Empire. A certain morality developed; one that equalled weakness and strength ("we're all equal to God!"). This new, exciting, interesting belief spread slowly through the Empire, particularly in Rome. One of the emperors started believing in this, and decided it to be the official religion of the Imperium Romanum. I believe this was what lead to its downfall, but that's another story.

The point is, this non-supremacist, humanist belief is the product of those deemed "low" by it. Ironic, isn't it?

*snipage*
I would disagree. There will always be those who are better than others at things and worse than others at things. But these are JUST things. Usually the whole better humans/worse humans talk about the whole of the human, all skills, knowledge, abilities, physical state, the sum of the human being better than another type of human. This sum goes far beyond just logical/mathmatical intelligence or atheletic ability. That is where human equality lies as you cannot 'weigh' one whole life and declare it of more value than another.

I don't think you understand. Firstly, Mao is dead. Secondly he wasn't an emporer (actually it spells emperor), he was the leader of the socialist party, which brings us to number 3: socialism is mentioned in the text

Mao wasn't socialist, he just told the "sheep" that to gain power. He's allowed to trick people like that because he's a "great man."

And if you think Mao is dead and isn't leader of the Pan-Galactic Empire, you're living in a dream world.

I see your point; there are many kinds of strength. But what about rulership? Should the people as a whole rule itself or should some persons rule them, because they have the skills to hold a people together? We need a strong leader or everything dissolves - read Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan, i recommend it to you.

Mao wasn't socialist, he just told the "sheep" that to gain power. He's allowed to trick people like that because he's a "great man."

And if you think Mao is dead and isn't leader of the Pan-Galactic Empire, you're living in a dream world.


So they say of every communist dictator. It seems like the only dictators honest about what they stand for are the fascists and nazis. Ideologies seem to splinter into smaller and smaller groups and die off one by one.

Fortunately there are support groups availible for people who realize they are sheep. Unfortunately they keep getting crashed by great men who lead the sheep off on one crazy crusade after another. Fortunately, it seems that great women have better things to do.

I hold these truths to be painfully self evident:
Snip
.

It probably sounded better in the original German.

Social Darwinism or social evolution is completely non-scientific. The traits that lead to success or failure in society vary by region and are constantly changing. Given an intergenerational time of roughly twenty years, human evolution takes thousands of years to make significant changes. Human societies simply do not hold constant for a long enough period of time.

Oh, thanks for the info on German (sieg heil), I didn’t know that

Really?

So what is it? Bible-basher or jesus-hugger? A little bit of both, maybe? They usually condemn the evolutionary theory because it conflicts with their creation myth, but in this case it is condemned because of the conflict with their morals... truly interesting....

Christianity, like socialism, has always teamed up with the weak, the lowly, the foolish and the unlearned. No wonder why; it was originally a jewish reformation sect among the poor and unfortunate in the Roman Empire. A certain morality developed; one that equalled weakness and strength ("we're all equal to God!"). This new, exciting, interesting belief spread slowly through the Empire, particularly in Rome. One of the emperors started believing in this, and decided it to be the official religion of the Imperium Romanum. I believe this was what lead to its downfall, but that's another story.

The point is, this non-supremacist, humanist belief is the product of those deemed "low" by it. Ironic, isn't it? The fact that the religion of the weak eventually assimilated most of Europe doesn't mean anything to you? Also that most religions that have risen to greatness advocate mercy.

I would disagree. There will always be those who are better than others at things and worse than others at things. But these are JUST things. Usually the whole better humans/worse humans talk about the whole of the human, all skills, knowledge, abilities, physical state, the sum of the human being better than another type of human. This sum goes far beyond just logical/mathmatical intelligence or atheletic ability. That is where human equality lies as you cannot 'weigh' one whole life and declare it of more value than another.

I agree, but I would go further as to say that the sum of a person is not simply the sum of their skills physical,intellectual or ethereal. People are not math problems and their respective humanity can't be measured with numbers. If it could a Robot could be a great human. IE: a robot that could run fast+ multiply well+ compose poetry= HUMAN? NO, because if so we are about half a step away from babies grown in factories and robots as presidents.

I apologize in advance for the nearly Matrix commentary/refrence

I notice that noone's raised one method by which ALL states in the world classify under-humans and over-humans... Criminals.

The Criminal is denied certain basic rights such as liberty and enfranchisement, and must do whatever the state wants them to do. Basically they're de-facto untermensch.

Oh yeah, those mentally unwell who are locked away from the rest of society also fall into this catagory.

So it is okay to catagorise a person by their deeds, but not by their capability to carry out aforesaid deeds?

By the way sig heil (sieg heil actually) means "stay healthy".

Are you sure?
Sieg means "victory".
Heil means "hail".
Wouldn't that make it "victory hail", so to speak?

Ich könnte mich auch irren, aber ich hab so meine Zweifel...

We've already GOT robots as presidents -- in fact, the vast majority of politicians are robotic to a degree. They are singularly fixated on money and re-election and indoctrinated (programmed?) to serve the interests that got them both the money and the election.

The main worry about the relative value of one human being to others is the problem that has plagued humanity since the dawn of civilization:

Who decides?

If the most popular are elevated because they are the most attractive, most physically developed, or in other ways somatically appealing, are they then the best leaders? If the decision goes to the physically stronger, what becomes of the intellectually stronger? To further an analogy that seems popular in this thread, Nazi Germany would have had very little military success without those who designed the fearsome machines of the Wehrmacht -- certainly many of those designers, engineers and draughtsmen were not supreme physical specimens. You just can't convince me that Messerschmitt was an adonis or that Von Braun had a washboard stomach.

So who decides? Are there to be Philosopher Kings? If so, who anoints them? No government can last long without either the consent or the capitulation of the governed. Some won either of those by force, some with ideas, and some with a combination. The Romans combined overwhelming martial might with a fairly unrestrictive rule once the conquest was complete. Mao was an idea man who used mass brute force to impose his ideas -- he only needed to convince those in charge of the governmental organs who would sniff out and quash any signs of refusal to take the Great Leap Forward.

So Einstein wasn't going to win either popularity contests or wrestling matches -- would you then call him an untermensch? God only knows how many potential or actual Einsteins were slaughtered at Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Auschwitz and elsewhere. So the question goes on unanswered because any answer seems to be no good:

Who decides?

Are you sure?
Sieg means "victory".
Heil means "hail".
Wouldn't that make it "victory hail", so to speak?


Oh, he's sure, all right. He's half wrong, but he's sure. That's very W of him. "Hail, victory" is certainly a more accurate translation. "Heil" does date back to a word that gets into English as "hale" as in "hale and hearty", and that word does indeed refer to "health". In fact, "health" itself is transliterated Old English, where the word was "hael" as in the Yule greeting "wacs hael", "good health" (this gets into modern English as "wassail"). Much like "weal" is the root of "wealth" when "wealth" was an adjective, not a noun. A lot of those words are related (some closer than others): heal, health, hale, whole, hail (as greeting).

But "sieg" is indeed "victory", so his translation proves to be as half-assed as his original post's treatise -- a vessel that holds no water.

I agree, but I would go further as to say that the sum of a person is not simply the sum of their skills physical,intellectual or ethereal. People are not math problems and their respective humanity can't be measured with numbers. If it could a Robot could be a great human. IE: a robot that could run fast+ multiply well+ compose poetry= HUMAN? NO, because if so we are about half a step away from babies grown in factories and robots as presidents.

I apologize in advance for the nearly Matrix commentary/refrence
And I happen to agree with you. Humanity is more than just physical/mental/emoutional there IS something more, and that something is what we've been debating about for centuries.

Unfortunately, the Internet isn't excatly a good way to express the awe that I was striving for here. ;)