On 03-07-98 Keith Knapp wrote to David Martorana... 
 KK> DM>     NOTE: The Aryan "occult" had many (DARK) crossover points into 
 KK> DM>           the Nazi underworld ..... 
 KK> That would be very interesting to trace... 
I think it begins with Tacitus on Germany; the cultural attributes 
of the Prussian warrior class go back that far at least. The cult 
part however, is a good deal more obscure.  Neitzsche's Genealogy 
of Morals and the Birth of Tragedy suggest the origin of much of 
the Nazi ideology.  However, the Nazi's lack of scholarship was so 
bad that they did not understand much of what he said, and a like 
lack in their enemies is evidenced by the fact that they did not 
catch the Nazis at it. 
 
My own take is that you are either a victim or a victor, and the 
best choice is the latter.  The Nazis picked up on that, but did 
not see his mandate for a ruler to be in complete control of him- 
self before trying to control others.  Neitzsche recognized that 
leaders must have a vision, but the Nazis failed to see how much 
effort and study went into creating that vision. 
 
In his Genealogy of Morals: "I have no patience with mummers who 
try to mimic life, with worn-out, used-up people who swathe them- 
selves in wisdom so as to appear 'objective', with histrionic ag- 
itators, who wear magic hoods on their straw heads, with ambitious 
artists who try to pass for ascetics and priests yet are, at bot- 
tom, only tragic buffoons.  And I am equally out of patience with 
those newest spectulators in idealism called Anti-Semites, who 
parade as Christian-Aryan worthies and endeavor to stir up all 
the asinine elements of the nation by that cheapest of propaganda 
tricks, a moral atitude." 
 
Now, why among all of the anti-Nazi writings of all of the liberal 
champions of human rights, was was this missed?  So to discuss the 
Aryan sense of right and wrong is not the same as accepting a Nazi 
view.  One take off point might be in his Birth of Tragedy... 
 
Compare Oedipus & Job.  The latter suffers because that's the will 
of God.  Oedipus suffers because he has transgressed his *own* 
sense of right and wrong.  As king and ruler of his own destiny, 
Oedipus laid down the law, could change any law handed down to him 
if he found it unreasonable, and when he finds himself disobeying 
his own law, that fact that he did so unknowingly does not deter 
him from suffering the consequences. 
 
That is the fundamental difference between the Semetic and Aryan 
mythology and morality.  Because the former sees himself as doing 
the will of God, any action is, as Hume said, justifiable in the 
furtherance of the cause.  As we see, this includes atrocity. The 
Ayran does right because, as Aristotle said, only a fool would do 
otherwise. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 * Death to all fanatics! 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------