• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Vox: The alt-right is drunk on bad readings of Nietzsche. The Nazis were too.

Mr.Mike

Member
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/nietzsche-richard-spencer-alt-right-nazism

“You could say I was red-pilled by Nietzsche.”

That’s how white nationalist leader Richard Spencer described his intellectual awakening to the Atlantic’s Graeme Wood in June. “Red-pilled” is a common alt-right term for that “eureka moment” one experiences upon confrontation with some dark and previously buried truth.

For Spencer and other alt-right enthusiasts of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, that dark truth goes something like this: All the modern pieties about race, peace, equality, justice, civility, universal suffrage — that’s all bullshit. These are constructs cooked up by human beings and later enshrined as eternal truths.

Nietzsche says the world is in constant flux, that there is no capital-T truth. He hated moral and social conventions because he thought they stifled the individual. In one of his most famous essays, The Genealogy of Morality, which Spencer credits with inspiring his awakening, Nietzsche tears down the intellectual justifications for Christian morality. He calls it a “slave morality” developed by peasants to subdue the strong. The experience of reading this was “shattering,” Spencer told Wood. It upended his “moral universe.”

There is, of course, much more to Nietzsche than this. As someone silly enough to have written a dissertation on Nietzsche, I’ve encountered many Spencer-like reactions to his thought. And I’m not surprised that the old German philosopher has become a lodestar for the burgeoning alt-right movement. There is something punk rock about his philosophy. You read it for the first time and you think, “Holy shit, how was I so blind for so long?!”

But if you read Nietzsche like a college freshman cramming for a midterm, you’re bound to misinterpret him — or at least to project your own prejudices into his work. When that happens, we get “bad Nietzsche,” as the Week’s Scott Galupo recently put it.

And it would appear that “bad Nietzsche” is back, and he looks a lot like he did in the early 20th century when his ideas were unjustly appropriated by the (original) Nazis. So now’s a good time to reengage with Nietzsche’s ideas and explain what the alt-right gets right and wrong about their favorite philosopher.

The obsession with decline

In her recent book about the rise of the alt-right, Irish academic Angela Nagle discusses their obsession with civilizational decay. “They’re disgusted by what they consider a degenerate culture,” she told me in a recent interview.

Nietzsche made these same arguments more than 100 years ago. The story he tells in The Genealogy of Morality is that Christianity overturned classical Roman values like strength, will, and nobility of spirit. These were replaced with egalitarianism, community, humility, charity, and pity. Nietzsche saw this shift as the beginning of a grand democratic movement in Western civilization, one that championed the weak over the strong, the mass over the individual.

...

Christianity is wrong, Christendom is right

In his interview with the Atlantic, Spencer, an avowed atheist, surprised Wood with a peculiar defense of Christianity: that the religion is false but it “bound together the civilizations of Europe.”

Spencer’s view is common among the alt-right. They have no interest in the teachings of Christ, but they see the whole edifice of white European civilization as built on a framework of Christian beliefs. From their perspective, Christendom united the European continent and forged white identity.

It’s a paradox: They believe the West has grown degenerate and weak because it internalized Christian values, but they find themselves defending Christendom because they believe it’s the glue that binds European culture together.

...

Nietzsche accepted that Christianity was central to the development of Western civilization, but his whole philosophy was focused on convincing people that the West had to move beyond Christianity.

When Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead,” he meant that science and reason had progressed to the point where we could no longer justify belief in God, and that meant that we could no longer justify the values rooted in that belief. So his point was that we had to reckon with a world in which there is no foundation for our highest values.

The alt-right skipped this part of Nietzsche’s philosophy. They’re tickled by the “death of God” thesis but ignore the implications.

“Nietzsche's argument was that you had to move forward, not fall back onto ethnocentrism,” Hugo Drochon, author of Nietzsche’s Great Politics, told me. “So in many ways Spencer is stuck in the 'Shadows of God' — claiming Christianity is over but trying to find something that will replace it so that we can go on living as if it still existed, rather than trying something new.”

The irony of racist Nietzscheans

The alt-right renounces Christianity but insists on defending Christendom against nonwhites. But that’s not Nietzsche; that’s just racism. And the half-baked defense of “Christendom” is an attempt to paper over that fact.

Nietzsche was interested in ideas, in freedom of thought. To the extent that he knocked down the taboos of his day, it was to free up the creative powers of the individual. He feared the death of God would result in an era of mass politics in which people sought new “isms” that would give them a group identity.

“The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carried on in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines,” he wrote. By doctrines, he meant political ideologies like communism or socialism. But he was equally contemptuous of nationalism, which he considered petty and provincial.

...

Nietzsche regularly denounced anti-Semitism and even had a falling-out with his friend Richard Wagner, the proto-fascist composer, on account of Wagner’s rabid anti-Semitism. Nietzsche also condemned the “blood and soil” politics of Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman who unified Germany in 1871, for cementing his power by stoking nationalist resentments and appealing to racial purity.

So there’s no way to square Nietzsche’s philosophy with the racial politics of the alt-right, just as it wasn’t fair to charge Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. But both of these movements found just enough ambiguity in his thought to justify their hate.

Nietzsche as a mirror

Nietzsche liked to say that he “philosophized with a hammer.” For someone on the margins, stewing in their own hate or alienation or boredom, his books are a blast of dynamite. All that disillusionment suddenly seems profound, like you just stumbled upon a secret that justifies your condition.

He tells you that the world is wrong, that society is upside down, that all our sacred cows are waiting to be slaughtered. So if you’re living in a multiethnic society, you trash pluralism. If you’re embedded in a liberal democracy, you trumpet fascism. In short, you become politically incorrect — and fancy yourself a rebel for it.

Nietzsche was a lot of things — iconoclast, recluse, misanthrope — but he wasn’t a racist or a fascist. He would have shunned the white identity politics of the Nazis and the alt-right. That he’s been hijacked by racists and fascists is partly his fault, though. His writings are riddled with contradictions and puzzles. And his fixation on the future of humankind is easily confused with a kind of social Darwinism.

But in the end, people find in Nietzsche’s work what they went into it already believing. Which is why the alt-right, animated as they are by rage and discontent, find in Nietzsche a mirror of their own resentments. If you’re seeking a reason to reject a world you don’t like, you can find it anywhere, especially in Nietzsche.

More behind the link.

PS. For a while Amazon had The Gay Science in the LGBT book section.
 

Slime

Banned
This is good. Evangelicals aren't too worried about racism or bigotry, but if they start to see the alt-right invoking Nietzsche, they might just get concerned.
 
I don't think these Nazis read Nietzsche as much as the author believes. Maybe the Hitler era ones did, but the current day ones are mostly just racist dumbasses without any attempts to justify their beliefs.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
I don't think these Nazis read Nietzsche as much as the author believes. Maybe the Hitler era ones did, but the current day ones are mostly just racist dumbasses without any attempts to justify their beliefs.

Actually reading it deeply? Naw. But he gets name dropped a good amount (also the Stoics).
 
This is the thing. Most of America is in the same boat with their "Christianity" it's just a bit more veneered. Christianity is largely a cultural perspective and not really one that is about the teachings of Jesus. This is how you get pro-war, white supremacist, evangelicals. The culture is the Christianity, not Jesus. But holding onto the facade allows you to hide behind the goodness of Jesus as something that's an inherent value to your culture. So you can say ... bomb Muslims, say of course Jesus wants you to not, but we live in a fallen world and that why we need Jesus. That's way more culturally palpable than saying "I hate brown people and I don't really care." One allows you to believe you are still fundamentally good. It disconnects your motivations and actions.
 

accx

Member
Oh the alt-right misinterpret Nietzsche, just like that famous nationalist german party from back in the day.

Quelle surprise.


EDIT:
I can't say that i'm an expert on Nietzsche but an excerpt from wiki says (which is what i remembered that i learned):
"After his death, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche became the curator and editor of her brother's manuscripts, reworking Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating his stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism"

One can read further and notice that Nietzsche was very much against antisemitism and the whole übermench-spiel that the nazis took to heart had absolutely fucking nothing to do with "superior races" or whatever the hell the Nazis thought. It's been awhile since i last read "also sprach zarathustra", but i seem to recall that his whole übermench idea were more inline with reinventing/destroying ones self and rise as a person who's stronger and "above" ones shitty negative moral convictions. He absolutely hated christianity but loved buddhism for instance.
He hade teories and said probably some shitty things but i guess his biggest offense were his hatred of women (which is hilarious btw), because he proposed to the girl in the group, she rejected him and went on to marry his best friend instead, thus giving way to "also sprach zarathustra"... I recall reading the parts in the book regarding his views on women and they are so ridiculous that one can't even take it serious. It reads exactly like a manbaby not getting what he wants.
Besides that, the whole nihilistic thinking/movement and disputing morals is actually very interesting imo.
 

norinrad

Member
I don't think these Nazis read Nietzsche as much as the author believes. Maybe the Hitler era ones did, but the current day ones are mostly just racist dumbasses without any attempts to justify their beliefs.

The troublemakers from Germany back then knew exactly what they were doing.
 

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Not to take the situation too lightly, but I've been thinking a lot lately of Gene Roddenbarry's Andromeda:

"The Nietzscheans are a subspecies of genetically engineered humans who religiously follow the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Social Darwinism, and Dawkinsian genetic competitiveness....
Museveni and his followers named this planet Fountainhead and declared it the home world of the new Nietzschean sub-race. Ayn Rand Station was built in orbit around Fountainhead in CY 8402."
http://andromeda.wikia.com/wiki/Nietzschean
 
The troublemakers from Germany back then knew exactly what they were doing.

I think underestimating the thought, care and skill that goes into effective authoritarian manipulation, indoctrination and propaganda is a critical error for anyone who values a free society. The people at the top, and many in the middle of these movements, know exactly what they're doing and are not "just dumasses" in that regard.
 
It's worth noting that the Nazis then didn't misinterpret his work, they manipulated it (not from misinterpretation), as the they did with a lot of things for their propaganda, I mean after all Nietzsche even criticised the very concept of German identity for example, and there is plenty of public record of his very strong views against antisemitism, the Nazis picked an chose, ignored what they wanted, manipulated what they wanted. Nietzsche's work is antithetical to the various ideologies involved in Nazi ideology as a whole such as "völkisch" ideology which was around during his time and persisted with the Nazis and became integral for their ideology. Nietzsche had a very rebellious and harsh attitude that was effective, something that was very alluring to Nazis. So with the aide of his hateful (Nazi) sister, they manipulated his work for their propaganda.

If you have adequate critical thinking and comprehension skills and are getting Nietzsche's work from a proper source you will see it has nothing to do with things such as Nazism and a lot of his work is criticism and highlighting of issues of various thought/movements during his own time that would later manifest more so and develop into Nazi ideology long after his death. Nietzsche is alluring, and his work can be manipulated very easily to be disseminated through propaganda among people that are unfamiliar with Nietzsche's work, his work was powerful, and when manipulated it's just as effective.

Today neo-nazis I think its a combination, continued purposeful manipulation and misinterpretation and a lot of the misinterpretation actually comes from the manipulation by Nazis then, just like how people read and spread misattributed or false quotes of people.
 
Jesus christ these motherfuckers have zero reading comprehension.

News at 11, stupid people can't understand shit.

This is another notch in the "if nazis/racists/etc are so smart then why can't they comprehend the shit they read, there are no smart racists" belt for me.

These motherfuckers are braindead and evil.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
Shocking News: /pol/ dipshits mis-read whatever philosophy or pseudoscience they can find to justify their crap

Just yesterday I googled "NLP textbooks" thinking it would be a fine way to pull up some textbooks on natural language processing. Instead I stumbled upon some nonsense pseudoscience called "Neuro-linguistic programming".

Inspired by these posts I did a quick search for "nlp" on the red pill and sure enough I found this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/48gc4q/how_to_defend_yourself_like_trump_11_pro/

Reframing is a popular Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) Technique in Therapy.

And of course there were a bunch more hits.
 

accx

Member
It's worth noting that the Nazis then didn't misinterpret his work, they purposefully manipulated it. Nietzsche's work is antithetical to the various ideologies involved in Nazi ideology as a whole such as "völkisch" ideology, but Nietzsche had a very rebellious and harsh attitude, something that was very alluring to Nazis. So with the aide of his hateful (Nazi) sister, they manipulated his work for their propaganda.

Today neo-nazis I think its a combination, continued purposeful manipulation and misinterpretation and a lot of the misinterpretation actually comes from the manipulation by Nazis then, just like how people read and spread misattributed or false quotes of people.

Yea and as i stated earlier in the thread, the whole übermench thing was something that the nazis manipulated and loved because it kinda could be interpreted that some where better than others... So i guess it was easy. Just reading like one chapter from zarathustra regarding this one should get that this has nothing to do with race or whatever.
But yea... His texts where purposely manipulated to fit their agenda. It's a shame, cause people still think that nihilism is somehow connected to nazis because of that.

EDIT:
off topic but even Kurzgesagt came out a month ago with how they see the world and what their ideology is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14
Something i personally ascribe to.
 
Sucks that no one understands Nietzsche anymore.

The far-right see it as justifying their bullshit when an actual reading shows it does anything but.

Meanwhile, everyone else seems to think it was the ramblings of a proto-fascist thanks to the above mentioned idiots.
 

Ithil

Member
99% of them have never read any sort of philosophy book. They rely on greentext 2-4 word summaries posted by other people who haven't read any of the books either.
 

*Splinter

Member
For Spencer and other alt-right enthusiasts of the 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, that dark truth goes something like this: All the modern pieties about race, peace, equality, justice, civility, universal suffrage — that’s all bullshit. These are constructs cooked up by human beings and later enshrined as eternal truths.
Huh... I've always thought of morality like this? But just because it's invented doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Our morality is a set of rules mutually agreed for the benefit of everyone. Nazis are selfish assholes too weak to support anyone but themselves.
 
My precious Nietzsche couldn't possibly be into race mizing, oh no!
“Nietzsche's way forward was not more [racial] purity but instead more mixing,” Drochon told me. “His ideal was to bring together the European Jew and the Prussian military officer. Spencer, I take it, only wants the latter.” Nietzsche, for better or worse, longed for a new kind of European citizen, one free of group attachments, be they racial or ideological or nationalistic.

Racists find affirmation in Nietzsche’s preference for “Aryan humanity,” a phrase he uses in several books, but that term doesn’t mean what racists think it means. “Aryan humanity” is always contrasted with Christian morality in Nietzsche’s works; it’s a reference to pre-Christian Paganism. Second, in Nietzsche’s time, “Aryan” was not a racially pure concept; it also included Indo-Iranian peoples.​
 

Cocaloch

Member
Yea and as i stated earlier in the thread, the whole übermench thing was something that the nazis manipulated and loved because it kinda could be interpreted that some where better than others... So i guess it was easy. Just reading like one chapter from zarathustra regarding this one should get that this has nothing to do with race or whatever.
But yea... His texts where purposely manipulated to fit their agenda. It's a shame, cause people still think that nihilism is somehow connected to nazis because of that.

EDIT:
off topic but even Kurzgesagt came out a month ago with how they see the world and what their ideology is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14
Something i personally ascribe to.

I know it's off topic, but Nietzsche isn't a nihilist.

Sucks that no one understands Nietzsche anymore.

The far-right see it as justifying their bullshit when an actual reading shows it does anything but.

Meanwhile, everyone else seems to think it was the ramblings of a proto-fascist thanks to the above mentioned idiots.

Nietzsche has never really been widely understood at all. He's probably one of, if not the, most misunderstood thinkers.
 

accx

Member
Huh... I've always thought of morality like this? But just because it's invented doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Our morality is a set of rules mutually agreed for the benefit of everyone. Nazis are selfish assholes too weak to support anyone but themselves.

I mean, if i remember correctly, Nietzches whole idea about morality were tied closely to Christianity, which at the time, were the holy grail of morality which everyone had to subscribe to. In the most simplest terms, his ideas were basically "you decide what's right for you".. kinda.
I'm somewhat tipsy so take it with a grain of salt. Anyways, yea, morality is something that's honestly subjective and it's something that changes constantly. We shouldn't have to rely on institutions to say what's right or wrong.

I know it's off topic, but Nietzsche isn't a nihilist.



Nietzsche has never really been widely understood at all. He's probably one of, if not the, most misunderstood thinkers.

Oh, yea? Why is he considered in laymans terms the father of nihilism then? I know so little about this subject honestly but i find it fascinating. Sorry in advance...

I should probably read more of his works tbh.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Oh, yea? Why is he considered in laymans terms the father of nihilism then? I know so little about this subject honestly but i find it fascinating. Sorry in advance...

Because he's particularly hard to understand, and popular understandings of intellectuals aren't too good in general. His entire philosophy is essentially an attempt to avoid the nihilism he sees as inevitably accompanying the decline of Christianity.

His focus is life affirmation.
 
Philosophy is so easy to pick and choose this and that to support your opinions. Personally I'm not a fan of people who spout philosophy quotes. Let it guide you, sure. But think for yourself.
Also, I'm probably wrong to do this but because of his misappropriation by the Nazi's and the far-right I tend to be particularly dismissive of someone if they quote Nietzsche. I probably shouldn't but I don't have the time or inclination to work out if their fascists or not.
I was also surprised to find a crossover with American Transcendentalism and the right wing. Both advocate small Government and self reliance, and certainly it's individualist message became the only message by the 1870's. Ultimately it lost any interest in social reform. So I tend to be a little critical of those who like repeating "Simplify! Simplify!" But again I may be being a little too harsh. As I said, people pick and chose what they want, usually to bolster their beliefs.
 
I mean, if i remember correctly, Nietzches whole idea about morality were tied closely to Christianity, which at the time, were the holy grail of morality which everyone had to subscribe to. In the most simplest terms, his ideas were basically "you decide what's right for you".. kinda.
I'm somewhat tipsy so take it with a grain of salt. Anyways, yea, morality is something that's honestly subjective and it's something that changes constantly. We shouldn't have to rely on institutions to say what's right or wrong.



Oh, yea? Why is he considered in laymans terms the father of nihilism then? I know so little about this subject honestly but i find it fascinating. Sorry in advance...

Because of the above-mentioned right-wing idiots that only saw words and phrases like "Ubermensch" and "God is Dead" and took them at face value. He did believe that there was no inherent morality to the universe but he specifically said that did NOT justify being an asshole and trying to conquer everyone. He was also not an anti-Semite (If anything, he was Anti-Christian).
 

accx

Member
Because he's particularly hard to understand, and popular understandings of intellectuals aren't too good in general. His entire philosophy is essentially an attempt to avoid the nihilism he sees as inevitably accompanying the decline of Christianity.

His focus is life affirmation.

I see.. Yea i need to read more honestly. I appreciate the effort of educating me.
I hope it doesn't come of as insincere (i'm not!)

Enough off topic drunk posting.. Pizza + sleep, now.
 
D

Deleted member 125677

Unconfirmed Member
My estimate is that roughly 0,07 % of people identifying as alt-right/white supremacist have managed to get through a single page of Nietzsche

Ok, maybe they have seen a Nietzsche """inspired""" meme on 4chan on something, but that doesn't really count
 

Riposte

Member
Trying to say someone has the incorrect interpretation of Nietzsche is fairly tricky because Nietzsche wrote in a way where multiple interpretations of him are possible, and by design one might argue. For starters, he attacked everything and everyone, including things one could suppose he liked. A left-wing egalitarian telling a right-wing ethno-nationalist how he got it all wrong is more likely to reveal what they both want from Nietzsche than how one of them got it wrong. Nietzsche has both been rewritten for the far-right and whitewashed by the far-left, leaving him to be deeply influential in the major moments of both. In fact, it shouldn't surprise someone to hear that the "Antichrist" is an important influence even among modern Christian intellectuals.

The article doesn't really make a great case because it's very shallow. Just like you could accuse Spencer or others of picking and choosing what he likes, the article also does a good practice of this. Yes, Nietzsche opposed german nationalism, but he liked the idea of "good Europeans - heirs of thousands of years of European spirit", which he referred to himself as - I'm sure Spencer, with his ideology of pan-european nationalism, likes this line too. The fact Nietzsche saw potential in breeding Prussians and Jews doesn't mean he wasn't racist - this is an explicitly racist form of eugenics! - he was merely not racist in the way Nazis were or modern anti-semites are. And despite hating anti-semites, Nietzsche's own views on Jews are fairly complex and often deeply critical, kind of a love/hate relationship. The article doesn't really touch on what would probably be Nietzsche's strongest rebuke to ethnonationalism or anti-semitic causes, which would be their basis in ressentment, mainly because it would be incredibly easy to turn that against the modern left just as Nietzsche used it against Christianity. (Also I'm really confused as to why the writer brings up paganism like that would bother the self-proclaimed aryans of today.)

Any attempt to tie Nietzsche to modern politics, exclusively so no less, should be looked at very, very carefully.
 

jviggy43

Member
At least in the case of Nazis in WW2, Nietzsche had died, the internet wasn't around to correct propaganda campaigns to turn his work into Nazis bullshit, and his sister was the one responsible for misconstruing his work to the Nazis party. Heidegger also pushed a false narrative of Nietzsche's work back then which didn't help. Any form of unification under some social entity would be picked apart, Nietzsche thought group think made us weak.
 
I know it's off topic, but Nietzsche isn't a nihilist.



Nietzsche has never really been widely understood at all. He's probably one of, if not the, most misunderstood thinkers.
Nietzsche is absolutely a nihilist, but Nietzsche has three definitions he uses for nihilist. One who believes in nothing and has no direction (modern capitalists), one who believes in a something which leads humanity toward a nothing (Christianity), and one who accepts a lack of inherent meaning in the universe, and thus takes this to be an empowerment to create one's own meaning (philosophers of the future). Nietzsche was disturbed by the first two and wanted to lay the groundwork for the third.

My precious Nietzsche couldn't possibly be into race mizing, oh no!
“Nietzsche's way forward was not more [racial] purity but instead more mixing,” Drochon told me. “His ideal was to bring together the European Jew and the Prussian military officer. Spencer, I take it, only wants the latter.” Nietzsche, for better or worse, longed for a new kind of European citizen, one free of group attachments, be they racial or ideological or nationalistic.

Racists find affirmation in Nietzsche’s preference for “Aryan humanity,” a phrase he uses in several books, but that term doesn’t mean what racists think it means. “Aryan humanity” is always contrasted with Christian morality in Nietzsche’s works; it’s a reference to pre-Christian Paganism. Second, in Nietzsche’s time, “Aryan” was not a racially pure concept; it also included Indo-Iranian peoples.​
Specifically, Nietzsche thought interracial breeding was the only way to rid the world of racism. You can't hate Jews if we are all a little Jewish!

I mean, if i remember correctly, Nietzches whole idea about morality were tied closely to Christianity, which at the time, were the holy grail of morality which everyone had to subscribe to. In the most simplest terms, his ideas were basically "you decide what's right for you".. kinda.
I'm somewhat tipsy so take it with a grain of salt. Anyways, yea, morality is something that's honestly subjective and it's something that changes constantly. We shouldn't have to rely on institutions to say what's right or wrong.



Oh, yea? Why is he considered in laymans terms the father of nihilism then? I know so little about this subject honestly but i find it fascinating. Sorry in advance...

I should probably read more of his works tbh.
Nothing about Nietzsche is universal. Some, he would say, should create their own values. Others are meant to follow. He wanted people who could lead humanity in a new direction. He is, in his own words, anti-enlightenment.

Because of the above-mentioned right-wing idiots that only saw words and phrases like "Ubermensch" and "God is Dead" and took them at face value. He did believe that there was no inherent morality to the universe but he specifically said that did NOT justify being an asshole and trying to conquer everyone. He was also not an anti-Semite (If anything, he was Anti-Christian).
No, Nietzsche is not someone who cares about justification. The need for justification is a slave moralist trait.

Trying to say someone has the incorrect interpretation of Nietzsche is fairly tricky because Nietzsche wrote in a way where multiple interpretations of him are possible, and by design one might argue. For starters, he attacked everything and everyone, including things one could suppose he liked. A left-wing egalitarian telling a right-wing ethno-nationalist how he got it all wrong is more likely to reveal what they both want from Nietzsche than how one of them got it wrong. Nietzsche has both been rewritten for the far-right and whitewashed by the far-left, leaving him to be deeply influential in the major moments of both. In fact, it shouldn't surprise someone to hear that the "Antichrist" is an important influence even among modern Christian intellectuals.

The article doesn't really make a great case because it's very shallow. Just like you could accuse Spencer or others of picking and choosing what he likes, the article also does a good practice of this. Yes, Nietzsche opposed german nationalism, but he liked the idea of "good Europeans - heirs of thousands of years of European spirit", which he referred to himself as - I'm sure Spencer, with his ideology of pan-european nationalism, likes this line too. The fact Nietzsche saw potential in breeding Prussians and Jews doesn't mean he wasn't racist - this is an explicitly racist form of eugenics! - he was merely not racist in the way Nazis were or modern anti-semites are. And despite hating anti-semites, Nietzsche's own views on Jews are fairly complex and often deeply critical, kind of a love/hate relationship. The article doesn't really touch on what would probably be Nietzsche's strongest rebuke to ethnonationalism or anti-semitic causes, which would be their basis in ressentment, mainly because it would be incredibly easy to turn that against the modern left just as Nietzsche used it against Christianity. (Also I'm really confused as to why the writer brings up paganism like that would bother the self-proclaimed aryans of today.)

Any attempt to tie Nietzsche to modern politics, exclusively so no less, should be looked at very, very carefully.
So this is mostly true, but Nietzsche is not someone who believes in genetic racism. When Nietzsche speaks of "the Jews", he is pointing toward their cultural heritage. Same with Good Europeans. He looks at ways of living across groups and thinks about how he could combine various cultivated traits into superior human beings.

Nietzsche is critical of everything, and anyone who wants to make a case for him hating Jews has plenty of material to pick from. But he also praises Jews a great bit. The goal is to understand what comprises a people, which means to take all of what is healthy and unhealthy in that group. But to think any of this culminates in a simple "Nietzsche likes this" or its opposite is not a nimble thinker.

At least in the case of Nazis in WW2, Nietzsche had died, the internet wasn't around to correct propaganda campaigns to turn his work into Nazis bullshit, and his sister was the one responsible for misconstruing his work to the Nazis party. Heidegger also pushed a false narrative of Nietzsche's work back then which didn't help. Any form of unification under some social entity would be picked apart, Nietzsche thought group think made us weak.
Nietzsche was still alive during the early Nazi period. They would mail him propaganda and ask him to join their group. It pissed him off something fierce. Luckily we have his personal letters to demonstrate this.

Don't confuse group think with social cohesion. Like I said, Nietzsche is not an enlightenment philosopher. Group think doesn't make one weak - the weak attempt to think in groups. Mixing cause and effect is one of Nietzsche's frequent criticisms of "modern" thinking.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Nietzsche is absolutely a nihilist, but Nietzsche has three definitions he uses for nihilist. One who believes in nothing and has no direction (modern capitalists), one who believes in a something which leads humanity toward a nothing (Christianity), and one who accepts a lack of inherent meaning in the universe, and thus takes this to be an empowerment to create one's own meaning (philosophers of the future). Nietzsche was disturbed by the first two and wanted to lay the groundwork for the third.

I mean I agree that he wanted to do that, I just don't think he saw that last group as Nihilists, as far as I remember he, and I agree with him here, sees them as post-Nihilists. I admit it's been quite a while since I've read him. Do you have any passages in mind on this? Either way, I'd argue he would be wrong to term that last group Nihilists though, or at least not to give sufficient semantic room for passive nihilism to exist, regardless of how he self identified.

As a bit of an side, I'm actually fairly sure Nietzsche isn't particularly positive he's in the last group either, even though he clearly sees that as the goal. That's why so much of his work is predictive.

Nietzsche was still alive during the early Nazi period. They would mail him propaganda and ask him to join their group. It pissed him off something fierce. Luckily we have his personal letters to demonstrate this.

He really wasn't coterminus with the Nazis unless you count their antecedents for some reason.
 
I mean I agree that he wanted to do that, I just don't think he saw that last group as Nihilists, as far as I remember he, and I agree with him here, see them as post-Nihilists. I admit it's been quite a while since I've read him. Do you have any passages in mind on this?



He really wasn't coterminus with the Nazis unless you count their antecedents for some reason.

Look at Will to Power, his collected notes. Sections 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23. He speaks of a "perfect nihilism" in the preface, as well. In Twilight of the Idols, "How the Real World at Last Became a Myth" parallels these ideas. I know citing Will to Power is controversial, but the thinking presented here follows his published thoughts too well to be ignored.

I think it's fair to say the third category are nihilists and post-nihilists, in the same way that Heideggar talks about a "something that is a nothing". It is their perfection of nihilism that allows them to become post-nihilistic, but their post-nihilism still contains the core tenets of their nihilism. It's equally adequate to use "perfect nihilism" as Nietzsche does. It's just a semantic difference, but I find it irksome when people say Nietzsche himself wasn't a nihilist at all. It causes us to miss something about how deeply depressed and distraught he was as a man steeped within its burdens. Just like it's popular to try and claim all of Nietzsche's "power" references just mean "self-overcoming", which Westerners misinterpret as a kind of happy Buddhism of the spirit. I think there's no doubt at all that Nietzsche was in favor of a kind of militaristic culture.

I also think that Nietzsche did not accomplish becoming a member of the third nihilistic category; rather, he spent the entirety of his life blossoming into the origins of such a way of thinking. Had he lived into old age, I still do not think he would have accomplished his goal. As the man himself said, we are all steeped within the mores of our circumstances. Even small progress would take a generation or two. But Nietzsche "is one thing", and his "writings, another". ;)

I am including the Nazi antecedents, not the official National Socialist German Worker's Party. Nietzsche of course died before their official incorporation.
 
Nietzsche would literally go out of his way to diss the nazis lol

Edit: picked up my copy of Genealogy of Morals and here's a verbatim annotation:

Having said things that can easily be misconstrued as grist to the mill of the German anti-Semites, Nietzsche goes out of his way, as usual, to express his admiration for the Jews and his disdain for the Germans.
 
Top Bottom