/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13626959]

Ive been reading a lot nietzsche this year, and one thing i find curious is that people often say the far right misinterprets Nietzsche or butcher him for their own goals. But i dont see how his disgust for democracy, him dismissing man as a herd animal, his pro-aristocratic views, slave morality, and his concept of the Ubermensch cant be seen as explicitly hostile to liberalism and leftism, if not flat-out far right. And i really dont see how someone like Foucault can claim to be Nietzschean when he just takes his perspectivist epistemology and something of his genealogical method and then just discards the rest.

[Anonymous No.13626984]

>>13626959
>And i really dont see how someone like Foucault can claim to be Nietzschean

Foucault spent the last years of his life studying Epictetus. He also spent his last years in gay orgies, which is pretty much the opposite of Epictetus' Ethics.

[Anonymous No.13626989]

>blablablabla

[Anonymous No.13627002]

>>13626989
>blobloblobblo niggernigger cunt

[Anonymous No.13627052]

>>13626959
In the translator notes for Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in the most fascist section in the book, the translator (Walter Kaufmann, Jew) said Nietzsche liked to make better arguments on behalf of his enemies than they themselves could make... for shits and giggle.
On the section criticizing big institutions, the translator note says "Straight anti-fascism", even though the book predates fascism.
Cherry picking.

[Anonymous No.13627060]

Based fascism

[Anonymous No.13627072]

>>13626959
google genealogy,
and Friedrich the whip here was also essential for the critique (and subsequent distrust) of rationalism, which is what focault followed most of the time. Those and the will for power.

[Anonymous No.13627097]

>>13627060
>huh that image is quite funny
>a few points later
>how could someone satirise so falsely?

[Anonymous No.13627111]

>>13626959
You can't classify him as left or right in the modern sense. At the time of his writing, however, he was probably considered left more than right, considering he rejected Christianity, Plato, academia, and most of Germany.

[Anonymous No.13627188]

>>13627060
Yikes

[Anonymous No.13627218]

>>13627097
>>13627188
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.13627229]

>>13627111
it's probably impossible to classify him, but if someone else, let's say a 25-year old university student held similar views as he did, wouldn't you consider him as part of the far-right at least more so than part of the left or conservative right?

[Anonymous No.13627325]

>>13627218
>Meanwhile, in Soviet slave labour camps

[Anonymous No.13627354]

>>13627229
He'd be more libertarian than far-right

[Anonymous No.13627393]

>>13627354
that wasn't the question. Why didn't you just straight up say he is more Nietzschean than far-right?

[Anonymous No.13627430]

>>13627354
He'd be aristocratic post-left anarchist

[Anonymous No.13627436]

>>13627052
Yes. N explains this in Ecce Homo.
>>13626959
He tackles traditionalists in several aphorisms in HATH and conservatives in their own directed aphorism in Twilight. At the same time he does not like people who think everyone is equal, as evidenced in several aphorisms spread out through all his works but best seen in the tarantula bit in Zarathustra. He is not RIGHT. He is not LEFT. He is not CENTER. Do your work, drop news and even books, and think. Aim and shoot. Leftists can’t claim him because what he says of woman and her prerogative. Right wingers can’t outright claim him because what he says about women and their impossibility (i.e. the future can change. Anything is possible with woman). Fuck how long have we been trying to split philosophers into left wing right wing pro this sans that? Damn... whatever gets the responses.

[Anonymous No.13627438]

>>13627393
I don't see him advocating for the ethno-nationalism of the far right anywhere. Sticking to your categories it might have to be conservative right

[Anonymous No.13627460]

The genius of nietzsche is that he appeases both fascism and liberalism without sounding like a bland centrist douche.

[Anonymous No.13627471]

>>13627229
>wouldn't you consider him as part of the far-right at least more so than part of the left or conservative right?
I'm the guy you replied to. It depends on what far right you're talking about. American far right? No, because that's primarily Christian traditional, which he never was, even in a modern sense (because the sense for that hasn't really changed much).

[Anonymous No.13628206]

In terms of valorization of hierarchy he's about right wing as you can get. In practical terms he basically wwanted the state destroyed as it prohibited the elite from taking their rightful place at the top. I don't know what he thought of economics, but he was basically a right-anarchist. Not classical liberal because he didn't subscribe to the NAP (also there's an egalitarianism in thinkers like Locke) but not European right because he doesn't value the nation-state or think in terms of "the people". Though he does sometimes imply great men should advance their nation (race), just not in a statist sense.

[Anonymous No.13628229]

>>13627111
But he also rejected egalitarianism outright which would have kept him out of the left.

[Anonymous No.13628253]

>>13627438
Nietzsche rejected nationalism, specially German nationalism, because he saw in it an ideology of resentment, fueled by anger towards French imperialism as experienced in the last 200 years of then German history.

German nationalism was the Third Worldism of the XIXth century, and it was in those terms that Nietzsche rejected it. But he didn't reject it in the name of cosmopolitan liberalism either, instead he admired the ethos of the French aristocracy that regularly raped Germany during its time as the Holy Roman Empire.

Nowadays that would be like opposing African decolonization and praising Rhodesia.

[Anonymous No.13628329]

>>13627052
This is why I don't particularly like Kaufmann. He's a good translator, but he has a clear agenda in the way he presents Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.13628337]

>>13628229
you can be a historical materialist and still not adhere by egalitarianism btw

[Anonymous No.13628344]

>>13627229
"Left" and "Right" are so poorly defined as to be almost useless. To classify politics as left-right is a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.13628368]

>>13626959
Nietzsche was a far-left, egalitarian, feminist, gender-fluid, communist, everything that suggests otherwise was edited by his sister, don't you know?

[Anonymous No.13628376]

>>13626959
Übermensch are above silly things like politics.

[Anonymous No.13628402]

>>13627436
word

[Anonymous No.13628499]

>>13627111
>You can't classify him as left or right in the modern sense
You absolutely can today, though. Which is OP’s point. It’s true that in his time he was probably seen more leftist, but there’s no question that if he came out writing these things today he’d be labeled far right. The only reason he isn’t is because Jews >>13627052 have had enough time to blunt his points and water him down. But if he were fresh off the presses he would be violently #CANCELLED.

[Anonymous No.13628525]

>>13628499
Yes, what this thread isn’t getting is that he doesn’t have to be explicitly “racist” or nationalist to be labeled far right (though as far as “racism”, he does allude pretty liberally to the superiority of “Hyperboreans”)—his glorification of hierarchy and hatred of the weak, basically endorsing eugenics, is what would be crossing the line. They’d call it fascist.

[Anonymous No.13628561]

>>13628499
>there’s no question that if he came out writing these things today he’d be labeled far right.
His anti-antisemitism suggests otherwise.

[Anonymous No.13628566]

>>13628499
both left and right are meme words
and as in regards to his classification
>pro aristocraticy
>pro war
>pro colonialism
>against human rights
>against equality
>against mercantilism
>against christianity
I suppose you get the idea, he is absolutely antithetical to both left and right at their core.

[Anonymous No.13628570]

>>13628561
First of all, even if true, no it wouldn’t. Literally read the response just above you.
Second, this isn’t even true. Read the Antichrist, his vitriol against Jews as he blames them for Christianity would be more than enough to qualify as “muh antisemitism” today. But again, doesn’t even matter.

[Anonymous No.13628576]

>>13628566
That has no effect for how modern society would label him. Twitter doesn’t grasp nuance.

[Anonymous No.13628578]

>>13628561
only a tiny portion of the far-right is anti-semitic, most of them are pro-israel

[Anonymous No.13628587]

>>13628566
what are you talking about? that's as right-wing as it gets, fits every definition of it except for the american neo-con one.

[Anonymous No.13628591]

>>13628570
>even if true
What does this mean? There is no question about his stance on it.

There are other views which come associated with that one which don't mesh well with the modern far right. The modern far right isn't very transcendentalist, for example.

[Anonymous No.13628604]

>>13628591
>What does this mean? There is no question about his stance on it.
Then how the fuck did I raise one in the very post you’re responding to you absolute rock of an intellect?

[Anonymous No.13628610]

>>13628604
Because you're poorly read?

[Anonymous No.13628620]

>>13627052
What's the best translation?

[Anonymous No.13628626]

>>13628587
there is no right wing party who would agree with such ideas, unless you are talking about the alt-right most of which wouldn't either and even if they did, they are a fringe minority.

[Anonymous No.13628645]

>>13628620
Kaufmann, even if his footnotes are often shit.

[Anonymous No.13628687]

>>13626959
He is anti-collectivism and anti-nationalism in particular.

He also is in favour of destruction of tradition, to liberate the creative potential of the few.

[Anonymous No.13628716]

>>13628626
Because actual right-wing, let alone far-right, parties are extremely rare nowadays, "conservatives" of today were leftist liberals decades ago.
>>13628645
Have you read others?
is thomas wayne translation any good?

[Anonymous No.13628723]

>>13628578
He wasn't pro-semitic either. Thing is, he was more like Machiavelli's Prince than people usually realize: he was anything when contextually appropriate. Which is why it's not possible to classify him under rigid dichotomies like that.

[Anonymous No.13628755]

>>13628610
I’m poorly read by advising you to read a book you’ve clearly never read? Interesting angle. You’re hopelessly retarded.

[Anonymous No.13628812]

>>13626959
he was profoundly inegalitarian and I think even wanted the return of slave society to some extent, but he was certainly not a german nationalist or anti-semite. most caricatures of him from the right misread him in the latter respect, while the left do cartwheels to creatively reread the aristocratic aspect of his work, the thorough disdain for the herd and collective conviviality

[Anonymous No.13628866]

>>13628716
Supposedly Hollingdale is the best after Kaufmann.

[Anonymous No.13628879]

Maybe he just didn't know what he was doing, even if what he was doing was philosophically valuable.

[Anonymous No.13628886]

>>13628337
Ya but as much as he shit on idealists I don't think you can really classify his method as historical materialism

[Anonymous No.13628911]

>>13628755
I've read the book and others you haven't read along with his letters.

[Anonymous No.13628972]

>>13628911
>>13628911
You are one of the rare cases of someone genuinely too stupid to deserve to live.
You falsely asserted that he’s anti-anti-semitism.
I referenced the Antichrist as having instances that would be classed as “antisemitic” by today’s standards.
You completely whiffed it and restated your initial claim, adding that it wasn’t even a question.
I express incredulity and refer to you again to my retort. It’s very much “a question” if there’s evidence to the contrary, retard.
You assert I must be poorly read ?? again ducking the retort.
I’m poorly read by referring you to a book you clearly haven’t read?
Yes, you say, and in fact, you’ve surely read all his others as well—this is of course more to the point!

You’re legitimately are too stupid to even carry a coherent conversation. I only type all this out in the hopes that a glimmer of selfawareness reaches you and prompts you to suicide.

[Anonymous No.13628979]

>>13626959
no no no the far-right didn't misintepret him if NEETcheese was alive today he would be closet alt-right

[Anonymous No.13629292]

>>13628972
What the fuck am I reading and what the fuck is wrong with you? Get help. You need it.

[Anonymous No.13629495]

>>13628972
What this guy said >>13629292

Why do you line break after every sentence? Also, you're taking his statements in The Antichrist and WRONGLY assuming this means he was dominantly antisemitic or in agreement with antisemitic movements. We have letters of him criticizing his sister for having married an antisemitic activist, and in his other books, he praises Jews. Like I wrote here >>13628723, Nietzsche is way more complex than you're giving him credit for being.

Nietzsche is, in a sense, "radically centrist" (the proper philosophical label is Dionysian)—he combines radical ideas from BOTH the left and the right, because he is fundamentally both and neither. Zarathustra is almost like a proto-Land at times, supporting the acceleration of all developments so they can burn out and perish as soon as possible so that new values can emerge from the ashes and repeat the cycle. In order to achieve that, you need to intensify everything; how can someone with such a goal stay aligned to either side indefinitely? They can't.

[Anonymous No.13629519]

>>13627052
dude, Walter literally saved Nietzsche from being dismissed and forgotten completely because of the way the Nazis used him. If not for him, NEET would be forgotten and buried with the defeat of the Nazis and all things German.

[Anonymous No.13629615]

>>13629495
That’s a lot of words just for you to completely miss the point. I didn’t say that Nietzsche was anti-semitic. I said he would be labeled anti-semitic for his less than flowery sentiments towards Jews in the Antichrist. You’re conflating what you think of him with what outrage culture would think of him. Because you’re a stupid bitch.
Also
>What this guy said
Lmao embarrassing

[Anonymous No.13629668]

>>13629615
Okay, so most people today would classify him as antisemitic. Fine, I don't disagree. They would be wrong, but whatever—my point is that classifying Nietzsche under invalid and rigid dichotomies is for idiots and so is this conversation at this point.

[Anonymous No.13629691]

>>13629615
literally the only thing that is embarrassing is you saying that you hope an anon commits suicide over a discussion on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.13629744]

>>13629691
wow i guess it really do be like that, how will i ever be a moralfag again

[Anonymous No.13629773]

>>13628253
>Nowadays that would be like opposing African decolonization and praising Rhodesia.
Pretty much this. It's hard to really put him on a modern Right-Left spectrum.

[Anonymous No.13629820]

the way i see it, neech's entire philosophy was a lifelong journey and you can't really attach any label or ideology or identity to him. trying to classify him, either by modern or 19th century standards, is pointless. neechee is simply neechee.

[Anonymous No.13629822]

>>13626959
Nietzche is far-right

I just finished beyond good and evil and couldn't believe how liberals pretend this guy is their guy.

[Anonymous No.13629844]

>>13627354
This. Martin Heidegger said Ernst Junger was the only true follower of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.13629920]

>>13629820
Neechee phone home!

[Anonymous No.13629964]

>>13626959
Read more Nietzsche.

The right wing have historically misinterpreted him, either due to his sister and her heavy handed editing to make them pro-fascist, or writers of a certain era like Evola that are also heavily influential in some right wing circles today. So there was a kind of "awakening" in understanding Nietzsche again in the west where it became clear he wasn't a fascist. I wouldn't consider him particularly political though, his thing is more about culture and its development (human excellence or whatever you want to call it). The herd animal thing is saying that not everyone is called to this project, he's saying that to develop culture you don't need to include everyone and not everyone wants to be included. He's heavily critical of aristocracy in terms of rule by descent throughout his work, but not in terms of some people leading culture. You may be trying to read more than what is there into that particular bit of his thinking now that I think about it. These people aren't even aristocratic souls in the classical sense, but they do have to bear the existential weight of living.

I can also see a few people itt putting way too much cache into parts where Nietzsche is merely being descriptive or laying a foundation, so probs read Genealogy of Morality and mistook Nietzsche describing a phenomenon (the tendency of folk literature to elevate fair featured people) and trying to explain it with him actively advocating for that phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.13630011]

I don't think he'd fit with with far right politics, since he was highly critical of tradition followed for its own sake, and his encouragement towards individualistic self-creation doesn't fit with the stress on conformity that's so prominent in far right ideologies.

If I were to place his thought politically (I personally feel it's a big mistake to do so) I'd probably describe it along terms of some sort of individualist, egoist anarchism, as his notion of an artistocracy of the best seems most fitting with their notions of emergent leadership, rather than any historical aristocracy. His critiques of anarchism at the time were directly primarily towards the social varieties that were standard for his time.

It's possible to be anti-egalitarian and not in favour of a specific form of calcified hierarchy, Stirner was sharply critical of egalitarianism as well.

[Anonymous No.13630017]

>>13626959
Neetchan is total garbage. The only things worth reading are 108 of gay science (no homo) and we philologists

[Anonymous No.13630814]

>>13629519
You're right. at least the jews didn't destroy Germany completely.

[Anonymous No.13630995]

>>13627430
so he'd be a MtF tranny open-carrying an assault rifle on campus every day

[Anonymous No.13631010]

>>13629964
The left have misinterpreted the shit out of him too. He doesn't even vaguely correspond to conventional left or right ideas. The people closest to him politically are Stirner and Ayn Rand, who are way below his level of insight in all other categories of thought he contributed to. All the smart people who love Nietzsche's philosophy take from it specific things, but they kind of erase his political and moral inclinations, which are extremely individualistic and elitist, to the point where, like you said, he can barely be understood as political at all, because he is never advocating for 'what everyone should do' or 'how society should be organized'. he is looking at how the individual should develop themselves, and not at the social situation which informs most people's understandings of themselves. Anarchism and fascism are both intimately related to his thought, but they are not Nietzsche, because they go from the individual to the whole of society in a moral-political agenda, which he always disdained.

[Anonymous No.13631027]

>>13631010
You are embarrassing yourself, please actually read him before giving your opinion.

[Anonymous No.13631042]

>>13626959
there is no cogent argument against reality - which is what nietzsche presented in his work - so people who want to reshape the world cannot argue with him, they must therefore twist what he says.

[Anonymous No.13631047]

>>13630011
He considered sparta as the closest thing to a community of ubermenschen as ever existed.
He also stated that there isn't an aristocracy of the spirit but only one of the blood, as refering to the emergent capitalist class in "gay science".
Read him before making retarded posts like this.

[Anonymous No.13631079]

let me know how close i am (never read any philosophy)

Nietzsche was some virgin man-child and closet homo. A real all piss and no vinegar guy, like that 4chan meme of the guy walking by a friend who says a mean spirited joke and he says nothing back, but later posts a scathing online comment about it.

As such, his world view was shaped by a lack of physical or emotional contact, and his 'philosophy' became some cold bleak idealism - but assuming this guy wrote in the 1700s? 1800s? he would've been anti-utopian, just to be edgy and calculating all the various dreams for the perfect society would crumble, his work would seem prophetic in 100-200-300 years - so anti-utopian idealism, where he basically writes about the exact opposite of everything he is.

Am i getting closer to the mark? He was probably well read, because what else did nerds do before electricity and dungeons and dragons but read a ton of books... So because he was well read, he tied in bits an pieces of everything into his writings so he could never really be objectively wrong, if you rejected his writings youd be rejecting all collected human knowledge up to that point, so again he made himself future-proof by weasling in a little bit of every religion, every philosophical school, every cultural innovation, and by doing this you could never disagree with him, all human knowledge is built by preceeding human knowledge.

Okay here's the clincher, he probably did not innovate or create any new ideas, as a philosopher he was basically a librarian, critiqueing everything like Marx did, but being too cowardly to offer any solutions, and as a typical nerd he fantasized about being some half naked sword wielding barbarian saving sluts in prehistory, no doubt he hated technology, society, civilization and modern comforts.

how did I go / 10? remember, never read about this guy or any philosophy ever. just going by my gut and remembering the type of people who seem really impressed with nietzy and always go on about it. (losers with no self-confidence or self-awareness)

[Anonymous No.13631092]

>>13631027
Respond to a thing I said with an argument. I've read plenty of Nietzsche and would be happy to talk about him with you

[Anonymous No.13631135]

>>13627218
USSR literally had a full employment policy, your flabby NEET arse would be doing pointless busy work to maintain that 0% unemployment rate.

[Anonymous No.13631168]

>>13626959
Nietzsche says do what you want
Far right says "nice, let's go hard on nationalism then"
Far left is too cucked to respond with "nice, let's go hard on socialism then"
Far left complains about Nietzsche being misinterpreted because the right used his statement for themselves when it was originally neutral

[Anonymous No.13631177]

>>13631079
Don't worry, being a retard and giving opinions about authors that you have never read is very common on /lit/

[Anonymous No.13631203]

What thinker isn't abused politically?

[Anonymous No.13631210]

>>13631010
>he is looking at how the individual should develop themselves, and not at the social situation which informs most people's understandings of themselves
He isn't a new age self improvement guru, the entire point of his work is the critique of Christian and equalitarian values, he directly argued in favor of slavery and an aristocratic order of society.
Inb4 muh ebil sister modified the will to power
Such ideas are present in his earlier works.
Also, the fact that he doesn't view positively the modern burocratic state does not imply that he has anarchist sympathies.

[Anonymous No.13631216]

>>13631210
Speaking of Nietzsche's sister, she was actually pretty hot.

[Anonymous No.13631242]

>>13631216
Do you think that they ever subverted plebean values together?

[Anonymous No.13631260]

>>13626959
I think Nietzsche's political views can be described best as some sort of bizarre aristocratism rather than as right wing in the modern sense. Fascism would have been far too collectivist for him, and its roots in nihilism and reduction of man into a clever ape wouldn't have vibed with him either. Nietzsche was all about giving great men room to flourish individually, whereas modern far-right politics are generally about breaking man down so he can be subsumed into a greater whole.

[Anonymous No.13631263]

>>13631216
Goddamn
9/10

[Anonymous No.13631269]

>>13631260
>he doesn't know that fascist regimes had the intention of creating a new aristocracy out of the upper echelons of the military

[Anonymous No.13631274]

>>13631210
Nietzsche was way too arrogant and creative to ever just sanctify the past. His aristocracy was of an ideal type where a Man would transcend the moral fetters of the past to become something according to his Will. This cannot be called right or left wing, it is way too individualistic, and the other retard who responded to me and told me i was embarrassing myself, I guarantee 100% the faggot won't reply either to make a single argument. These idiots don't read, they assimilate content for their agendas and biased worldviews.

[Anonymous No.13631302]

>wears the pants
>steals his work and modifies it
>has 11 children, eternal bloodlines

uberwomensch

[Anonymous No.13631303]

>>13627060
This is my ideology...

[Anonymous No.13631322]

>>13631274
>is way too individualistic
When does he argue for individualism?
In beyond good and evil, he states that abstaining from offense, violence, exploration and being equalitarian makes sense among aristocratic individuals who belong to a common "body" the only error is to apply such principles to the entirety of society.
Again, his philosophy isn't a superficial dismissal of morality but a critique of slave morality.

[Anonymous No.13631343]

>>13631322
Nietzsche is not arguing for the opposite of slave morality, which is master morality, he is trying to go beyond the concept itself, he says this very clearly.

[Anonymous No.13631357]

>>13631343
Where does he make similar insinuations or statements?

[Anonymous No.13631376]

>>13631357
In his concept of the Ubermensch, in thus spoke zarathustra. There is nothing even close to the collective approaches to social organization that the right and left always employ. The closest thing is a monarch or a figure like Hitler, but Nietsche criticized the ancien regime and would have laughed at hilter for his ressentiment and sentimentality. He would not have liked left wing revolutionaries like Lenin for the same reason, they lie, and they present moral ideals he thinks are ridiculous.

I don't really know if the Nietzschean ubermensch is even possible, I think probably not. But he lived before we knew a lot of stuff, and he had a fucked up life, so it's not that weird that he was confused.

[Anonymous No.13631396]

>>13631376
What exactly does he state, that would make you think he is an individualist or opposed to master morality or against a "collective approaches to social organization"?
I want the passage where he makes such statements, because this would be against all of his previous and later works.
Assuming you aren't just misinterpreting him by using one random quote.

[Anonymous No.13631405]

>>13631396
by all means post passages that show that he supports those things, if you want me to post contradictory passages. The ubermensch is not a return to the roman, it is a going beyond.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.13631427]

>where?
Do you even read, brain failure?

[Anonymous No.13631431]

>>13631376
>In his concept of the Ubermensch
also, he has said that the closest people to ever reach such ideal were Napoleon and the Spartans.

[Anonymous No.13631435]

>>13627060
Wow this just radicalized me

[Anonymous No.13631452]

>>13631405
Read part nine "what is aristocratic?" of Beyond good and evil.

[Anonymous No.13631463]

>>13629844
>Ernst Jünger
>Libertarian
The guy was straight up NazBol lmao

[Anonymous No.13631680]

>>13631242
If you read their letters it's all very wholesome and childish.

[Anonymous No.13631698]

>>13631269
That's repeating the bollocks that has happened since time immemorial. Nietzsche subscribes to the idea that the ruling classes were previously the most successfully violent bastards who briefly have quite a lot of power but then quickly are led by the morality they create piecemeal to try and maintain that bit of power (and in doing so lose it). Nietzsche's looking for another way.

[Anonymous No.13631704]

>>13631376
>in thus spoke zarathustra
Why do people insist on reading this with no other ideas about his thought?

[Anonymous No.13631753]

>>13631698
I think that his argument was about slave morality in the case of europe Christianity slowly corrupting and eroding the power of the aristocracy by undermining the aristocratic system of values.

[Anonymous No.13632881]

>>13626959
>i dont see how his disgust for democracy, him dismissing man as a herd animal, his pro-aristocratic views (...) cant be seen as explicitly hostile to liberalism and leftism

This is uncontroversial. It's the leap from here to far right and more specifically fascism which ignores many of Nietzsche's core tenets, namely his anti-nationalist and anti-moralist sentiments, that no master will ought to submit itself to a people let alone a state, that no mass morality can ever apply to a people, that no objective morality can ever exist, and that a people who define themselves by who or what they are not are slaves to their own ressentiment.

Maybe if you are the head honcho of a Fascist regime you are truly Nietzschean, but even still negation/domination of the other is considered a low exercise of force which ultimately divides the active power of the dominating.

[Anonymous No.13632921]

>>13626959
>i really dont see how someone like Foucault can claim to be Nietzschean when he just takes his perspectivist epistemology and something of his genealogical method and then just discards the rest.
because people like Foucault and Deleuze are cryptofascists sympathetic to everything nietzsche is saying but adopting "Leftist" projects because they wanna get that May 68 boi/pussy

[Anonymous No.13633044]

>>13631376
>I don't really know if the Nietzschean ubermensch is even possible, I think probably not.
It'll be possible with gene editing and cloning.

[Anonymous No.13633917]

>>13627052
don't read anything by Kaufmann.

[Anonymous No.13633995]

>>13629964
>either due to his sister and her heavy handed editing
Stopped reading the post there.

[Anonymous No.13634015]

>>13627060
>muh food, muh (propaganda) freedom of speech, muh basedboy activities, muh no welfare strawman even though Nazis were one of the few countries that introduced programs like strenght through joy (which a lot of "lefties" today would vote if given the chance) the introduction of Volkswagen, environmental policies and most important freedom from the global market and feeling of auto-sustainability and community

daily reminder that people who vote for everthing that is that pic couldt care less about freedom of speech or the well-being of people, they just use tht an excuse to maintain their degenerate and consumeristic lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.13634051]

>>13633917

Honestly curious, I have a few of his books in my library that I never red since I speak and read in frog mostly.

[Anonymous No.13634166]

>the man who posited master/slave morality
>redditors actually think nietzsche is on their guy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13634209]

>>13634051
Kaufmann’s translations are top notch. That’s why he’s advising you not to read him.
If you want to read Friedrich in English, he’s a very good choice.

[Anonymous No.13634228]

>>13634209
It's not the translations that are an issue, it's his shitty notes

[Anonymous No.13634290]

Nietzsche is arguably more right wing than Hitler ever was.

At least in Hitler's Nazi ideology there is a sense of community and blood and soil. Nietzsche would have laughed at this shit. He thought the majority of the so called "people" were retarded animals that only understood the whip and brute force. This is why Nietzsche doesn't have a political program, his philosophy isn't addressed to political reformers or idealists, but those aristocratic individuals who through sheer force of will would impose their will and power unto others. In Hitler-Nazism, and and especially communism - stalinism, there is something elementally christian, which is a near divine providence and importance for the social whole. Nietzsche wasn't against the annihilation of the individual , he even recommended that socialism be tried out as an experiment to see how far the denial of the will can go, to see how much massification and blind obedience can transform the old order. This would then be followed by what he called "grand politics", these massified blocs of power which would clash transforming the old world order (he effectively predicted the two world wars). Now some like Junger cherypicked old Freddy to create their own individualist conservative philosophy, and gay aids man chose to focus on his genealogical method, which is fine. But Nietzsche crown achievement, the one elemental thing which he himself said was to be principal above all others in his philosophy, is the WILL TO POWER.

tl;dr

It is hard to find a bigger edgelord than Nietzsche in the history of thinking.

[Anonymous No.13634366]

>>13634290

Also, I forgot about this gem.

Nietzsche was so right wing in his disdain for egalitarianism and the herd, he was against the biological theories of Darwin and Darwinism in general. If one thinks about Nazism, the obviously there is some sort of biological and social Darwinism with "race" at its core. Now Nietzsche could not accept that the power of the mass and the herd could be used for adaption in the dog eat dog Darwinist scheme. Instead he proposed that it was a conservation of power that resulted in the fittest being staying alive. Will to Power was the strongest in someone who conserved and unleashed it at some opportune moment , like an arch Machiavellian tactician. Things like loyalty, honesty and fidelity to ones own "people" meant nothing to him. The herd would have to be morphed into whatever the one with the biggest will to power decided.

[Anonymous No.13634368]

A lot of people ITT that deny right-wing tendencies in Nietzsche seem to have no conception of what right wing is, other than voting for the American Republican party.

[Anonymous No.13634461]

>>13634051
He drops notes and explanations that try to get the last word in.
Every time Nietzsche mentions “Jew” or anything anti-democratic, I always know there is going to be a footnote. It’s too obvious.

[Anonymous No.13634467]

>>13631302
überweib

[Anonymous No.13634469]

This might be a stupid question, but how would I start reading some author (like Nietzsche)?
Do you guys just buy a shitload of books or read pdfs from the internet?

[Anonymous No.13634492]

>>13631302

>has 11 children, eternal bloodlines

source? I don't think she ever had children

[Anonymous No.13634496]

>>13634469
I just read the wiki page and then make threads about that author based on my very superficial understanding. Then some people always come in and correct me and quote passages showing how im wrong and that i should read this particular book before posting etc.
Ive done this with Adorno, Schmitt, Spengler, Guenon, Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, and other authors i dont really remember. People generally arent that helpful, but they love to be right, so you have to exploit that.

[Anonymous No.13634554]

>>13634496
That sounds like a fun approach, thanks

[Anonymous No.13634617]

>>13634496
lmfao based

[Anonymous No.13634662]

>>13634469
Just read the books you hear people talking about. If you see a thread like this, look up the author, see if the Wiki and so forth interests you, if it does, find the most interesting or necessary of his works and start there. And yes, most of the Western canon can be gotten free online. PlanetEbooks and Global Grey are a couple basic bitch options you might check out.

[Anonymous No.13634686]

>>13634290
>It is hard to find a bigger edgelord than Nietzsche in the history of thinking.
*laughs in de Sade*

[Anonymous No.13634708]

>>13631302
This is the only antediluvian picture of a woman I’ve seen where she looks like a good fuck.

[Anonymous No.13634783]

>>13626959
Nietzsche is probably burning in hell desu. Thus spoke zarathustra was a dumb book

[Anonymous No.13634834]

>>13634290
this is actually one of the best summaries of neetcha i've come across

[Anonymous No.13636263]

>>13631047
> A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1:11

Nietzsche was staunchly anti-political; the main concern of his project was that the great should flourish.