Thoughts on Nietzsche and National Socialism

albion

Registered
Thoughts on Nietzsche and National Socialism

It is the J*w Kaufmann and others in the post-war period that have distorted Nietzsche. Nietzsche's sister knew her brother and his philosophy INTIMATELY. She set up the Nietzsche Archive and got generous funding from Hitler's government [whereas the previous 'democratic' Weimar government impoverished it]. It is thanks to Nietzsche's sister that we have a complete edition of Nietzsche's writings. In the last years of his life Nietzsche was planning to publish his magnus opus The Will To Power; his letters, notebooks and various comments from his friends show that the work was in a very advanced state. It was only Nietzsche's untimely collapse in his mid-40s [while running to the rescue of a horse who was being beaten by his owner] that prevented its ultimate completion. His sister was completely right to publish the u
nfinished masterpiece as she did. As a general poin
t - we do not have Aristotle's finished works; his treatises are largely lecture notes. The Presocratic philosophers [Nietzsche's favourites] have only come down to us in fragments - and not written in their own hand. So let us not fall for this Jewish deception regarding Nietzsche. He was THE philosopher of National Socialism/Fascism.

Only three books were enshrined in the Tannenberg Memorial in 1933: Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century, and Hitler's Mein Kampf. That act of singular homage shows how important Nietzsche was to National Socialism. The world renowned philosopher Martin Heidegger [NSDAP member] gave a mammoth series of lectures on Nietzsche in the 1930s which place Nietzsche's concepts to the very centre of National Socialism [and are now available in a 2 volume book called 'Nietzsche' for those interested in this philosophy]. The fact that Nietzsche liked Heine [a J*w]
does not disqualify - Hitler liked the music of Brahms! Nietzsche's Bey
ond Good and Evil deals in part with contemporary politics, while Book IV of The Will to Power [called 'Discipline and Breeding' is all about politics!]. See also Nietzsche's early essay 'The Greek State' to understand his political stance [which was elitist, anti-democratic and anti-liberal, rather like fascism]. There's passage in Zarathustra where Nietzsche refers to the democratic 'State' of his own time, a state which PRETENDS to be of the people. He found Bismarck's State to be: "founded on the most thread-bare and despised ideas: equal rights and universal suffrage". [Nietzsche WP 742]

Nietzsche envisaged a military dictatorship ruled by an elite as his ideal. "The maintenance of the military state is the last means of all of acquiring or maintaining the great tradition with regard to the supreme type of man, the strong type". [Nietzsche WP 729] Remember that
Nietzsche's rejection was of contemporary PARTY politics and liberal democracy. He was always pushing for what he called 'G
reat Politics', and regarded the breeding of a new European Ruling Caste as the most important project. This Nietzschean conception can be seen in the SS, for example. I think 'Super-Human' is the best translation of 'Uebermensch' in most cases, simply because this is the term used twice in Byron's Manfred which clearly inspired Nietzsche's use of the term. Alfred Rosenberg is usually referred to as the in-house philosopher of National Socialism. That the only pre-Nazi philosopher placed in the Tannenberg was Nietzsche demonstrates something! Not Schopenhauer, not Hegel, not Kant - but Nietzsche! This is a fact, not an opinion. The Left may call that 'appropriation', but that means nothing; it is a fact that fascism and nazism were both influenced BY Nietzsche. Moreover, Nietzsche was not [is not] considered a respectable academic philo
sopher; so if all the Nazis wanted was credibility [and hence to 'appropriate' a philosopher] they would NOT have chosen Nietzsche [rather Hegel, Kant et
c.,] Who is THE philosopher [pre-cursor of course, as Nietzsche died in 1900] of National Socialism? That Nietzsche enjoyed the German-Jewish poet Heine means nothing, as Hitler himself enjoyed the music of the German-Jewish composer Mahler! Nietzsche hated the CHRISTIAN anti-Semitism of HIS TIME. He tried to make the Christian anti-Semites aware that their own creed was of Jewish roots; in this he was like Himmler, Bormann and Rosenberg. Nietzsche pitted Semite against Aryan in his work: "Judea versus Rome"! Nietzsche was a prime influence on the Italian Futurists and on Mussolini. Also, look at the work of Julius Evola - this is Nietzschean, fascist elitism. Fascism sought to create the New Man - a kind of Super Human. Nietzsche admired the Roman Empire above all other political forms - so did Mussolini. Nietzscheanism is NOT indiv
idualism - Ubermensche means Super Human. An Aristocracy is a group, an elite - NOT an individual. How could they breed without being a race? Nietzsche always spoke of
a Master Race, a group of Free Spirits etc., It is the post-war liberal distortion of Nietzsche that has tried [miserably] to make him an existentialist/individualist.

Those who disagree with the above should read Book IV of 'The Will To Power' [entitled 'Discipline and Breeding']. That liberals such as Kaufmann are the dominant translators of Nietzsche in English in the post-war period indicates that a liberal reading [distortion] of Nietzsche has occurred after WWII. This was a rehabilitation - a denazification if you like. As proof, compare this to the pre-WWI [one] reading of Nietzsche in England, where eugenicists pre-dominated. If we look at Nietzsche the MAN we see that he constantly craved to find a small group of like-minds [see his relations with Ree, Gast and Salome to name a few]. He belonged to Germanic assoc
iations at University and there is some speculation that he was an initiate in a secret order or society. He wanted a Brotherhood of the 'Joyful Wisdom' to propagate his philoso
phy - unfortunately there was no one in his day who understood him.
 
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=193&page=9&pp=10
Friedrich Braun:
Nietzsche's view of society was hierarchical - great Artist Tyrants dominating at the top [Leadership Principle as in fascism]; an Aristocracy of Breeding round them and the masses below. This is similar to the basic Aryan division of society -- where the Aryan male is master and ruler. Such an arrangement has transmogrified today into a global racial hierarchy. For Nietzsche only Blood [race] could deliver Nobility - nothing else. Nietzsche spoke of a great chain of becoming and recurring cycles - all of us are connected by that chain.

When I don't read Nietzsche in its German original (as Nietzsche should be read), I prefer the translations made in the late 19th/early 20th century. I feel they are nearer to Nietzsche
in spirit as well in time. However I do use the mode
rn translations, but only for comparison/modification where necessary. While I agree that Kaufmann sins mainly in his self-serving and politically correct notes, I cannot help but think that such a liberal J*w would also - even if unconsciously - slant a translation that way as well.

Many of the early translators were elitists, racialists, anti-feminists and eugenicists [such as Anthony Ludoici, James Kennedy, Alexander Tille] and one of them [Helen Zimmern] even knew Nietzsche and was asked by him to translate his work. Indeed, on the latter point, Nietzsche also asked Strindberg to translate some of his books [he declined]; therefore the perspective of the translator is important [see also Mencken's translations]. There will always be a bias, and I would rather the bias be my way.

A lot of nonsense is talked about Nietzsche's sister's tampering with his works. The Will to Power was near completion, and if his nationalist and anti
-Semitic sister was intent on removing everything she disagreed wi
th [as the executrix of his works], then we would not have the anti-German and pro-Jewish references within them. I know the latter point is a problem for modern Nationalists in the Anglo-Saxon world today. It was not such a problem to Hitler and his circle because Germany is the home of philosophy. Germans understood that a philosopher must thoroughly test all his ideas and opinions; a philosopher is not a mere ideologist. Nietzsche's early work was written when he was an associate of Wagner; he then shared Wagner's anti-Semitism and German nationalism. However, he felt the Master's domination over-much and did not want to become a mere propagandist for the Wagnerites. This led him to break with Wagner - this could only be done by a rejection of Wagner's values. In his book Human all too Human, Nietzsche "took sides against himself". Every position he had once held he argued against. He criticised the Germans and prai
sed the French; he also found good things to say about the J*ws, knowing that this w
ould cause a break with Wagner. When the Master received his copy of Nietzsche's book he read a few pages and set it aside forbidding the name of Nietzsche to be said in his house, while his wife Cosima said that "the J*ws have got to Nietzsche." But as Nietzsche's career went on, and he wrote Zarathustra and the rest, it became clear where his true position lay. He was against the narrow, petty nationalism which led eventually to White nations fighting each other; Nietzsche advocated a wider nationalism of the Good European [a precursor of today's White nationalism?]. As I mentioned before, the anti-Semitism in Nietzsche's time was mainly Christian. Nietzsche, the anti-Christian, felt that the anti-Semites were sneaking Christianity into the back door and so attacked them at every turn with a sledgehammer. In so doing he made some ironic, teasing, and provocative pro-jewish remarks which should only
be seen in this context. Nietzsche desired a pagan, Aryan spirituality, and so was essentially anti-Sem
itic in the profoundest sense of the phrase. He saw Semitic values as the antithesis of the Aryan, and thought of Christianity as Semitic. So you will not find in Nietzsche the black and white of an ideologist and dogmatist, but you will find the very profound depths of a true philosophy. The nearest to him that I've seen since is Julius Evola who has a similarly subtle [Latin?] view of the racial issue. But I return to something that I have already touched upon - is there an ORIGINAL philosopher in the Anglo-Saxon tradition who could compare and be useful to nationalism?
 
Just some very superficial comments on the Nietzsche vs Nazi topic.

Nietzsche never promoted Hitler and/or the NAZI party in Germany
as these 'events' came after his time.

Hitler and/or the NAZI party in Germany may have promoted Nietzsche.

************************************************************

A logical parallel might be drawn between Jesus Christ and the Mormon Church.
 
Back
Top