Fascist or Republican?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What do you mean, OR?

Why the wink?

[GePap]

Fascism is not socially conservative: its socially disruptive.

But the fact Nietzshce was anti-nationalist makes him anti-fascist.

Fascism is a political ideology that at its base assumes that the most important association people make is to their culture and the nation it creates. This puts it in conflict with communism, that assumes ones job title is the most important association-hence the notion of class- worker vs capitalist and so forth. Just as Marx has proleteriat vs. bourgeouis, fascists have X nation vs. any others. Fascists hate communism because for them it destroys national unity (by pinning the proleteriat members of the nation from the bourgeouis members) and undemrines the common culture that makes the nation the nation.

The state, as he embodiment of the nation, is also a crucial piece of fascist ideals. One body is necessary to unite the nation and give it cohesion and purpose- and that body is the State.

Nietzsche was anti-State and anti-Nation. You can;t be anti-State and anti-Nation and be a fascist.

[dannubis]

Fascism is all about complete control of the state. the good of the individual is totally subjected to that of the state

That doesn't sound like nietzsche at all, me thinks

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MikeH


Why the wink?

Because, ultimately, Che doesn't want to have to say that he was once a Fascist

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

what we call social conservatism, if reached upon by the right way, would be in keeping with Nietzsche.

Nope. It's putting in place a slave morality. Nietzche would have hated it and spoke out against the social conservatism of his time.

all your post did was say he wasn't a racist or pro-german... am i a racist? am i pro-german? no on both accounts yet i'm still a fascist. really, imran, what was the point of that quote and your bolding?

The point of the bolding was that he was anti-nationalist and anti-state. That's directly opposed to Fascism.

and Nietzsche would also say that despite there being moral perspectivism, one must still treat his own interpretation of the world as an absolute. it is for that reason that all must impose or try to impose their will upon the world... but it must always be for the right reason... not for God or because God commanded it but because I commanded it.

You've misread Nietzsche. He does not believe in any moral absolutes in anyway. Like he says, all ethics are interpretations of people and those who claim absolutes in morality are just totally wrong.

And imposing your will doesn't mean creating societies with slave morality (such as social conservatism definetly does). It means giving in to your baser desires (your id, in Freud speak) and not fighting it and put it in your pocket.

No matter how much you want it to, Speer, Nietzsche in no way is supportive of social conservatism or Fascism. He's an ultra liberal, believing in super individualism (society is bunk, which you'd never hear a social conservative claim) and moral relativity.

[Al B. Sure!]

GePap:

One man somewhere proclaims a truth and forms a movement which is intended to serve the realization of his purpose.... may be that centuries, dissatisfied with the form of their religious life, yearn for a renewal, and that from this psychic urge dozens and more men arise who on the basis of their insight and their knowledge believe themselves chosen to solve this religious distress, to manifest themselves as prophets of a new doctrine, or at least as warriors against an existing one... The fact that such movements, parties, religious groups, arise entirely independent of one another, solely from the general will of the times to act in the same direction, is what, at least at first sight, seems tragic, because people incline too much to the opinion that the forces scattered among the different ways, could, if concentrated upon a single one, lead more quickly and surely to success.

This, however, is not the case. For Nature itself in its inexorable logic makes the decision, by causing the different groups to enter into competition with one another and struggle for the palm of victory, and leads that movement to the goal which has chosen the clearest, shortest, and surest way....

For as soon as a man appears who profoundly recognizes the distress of his people and then, after he has attained the ultimate clarity with regard to the nature of the disease, seriously tries to cure it, when he has set a goal and chosen the road that can lead to this goal -

immediately small and petty minds take notice and begin to follow eagerly the activity of this man who has attracted the public eye.

These people are just like sparrows who, apparently uninterested, but in reality most attentive, keep watching a more fortunate comrade who has found a piece of bread, in hopes of suddenly robbing him in an unguarded moment...

Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions.

-Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf, "The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone" clearly has Nietzsche written all over it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Speer:



Nietzsche ISN'T telling people to do whatever you can to make others slaves. The worst systems for him are those that perpetuate the slave morality. He wants each individual to transcend.

Fascism is totally based on slave morality (nationalism and social conservatism).

You seem to only read Nietzsche as might makes right without stopping to think if he believes might should make right, or just that is what occurs in the world.

[Al B. Sure!]

Nope. It's putting in place a slave morality. Nietzche would have hated it and spoke out against the social conservatism of his time.

and yet Nietzsche made it clear that he favoured abstinence! why? not because God said so (THAT is slave morality) but because it contributed to the biological/psychological/spiritual betterment of the individual by making him feel stronger by the absorption of semen into the blood... in other words, to Nietzsche abstinence was good... was practical... it's wasn't good because God commanded it and it's opposite (sex) was declared evil by God!

You've misread Nietzsche. He does not believe in any moral absolutes in anyway. Like he says, all ethics are interpretations of people and those who claim absolutes in morality are just totally wrong.

exactly but Nietzsche was also somewhat of an egoist. do i need to explain to you what the will to power is or do you already know that it is a doctrine by which all beings seek, biologically, to fashion reality in their own image...

it's inescapable. Nietzsche repudiated all objective values (though saying the will to power was an objective truth, contradictingly) and claimed that 'reality' was just one's perception of what he sensed. Perspectivism is necessarily egoistic as if all that is is only what one experiences or wishes to experience, then one has complete control over one's own reality so therefore, fashions reality in his image, and therefore, seeks to impose his will, his beliefs, his convictions, his personality, upon the reality that he has fashioned. perspectivism necessarily leads to egoism...

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

He wants each individual to transcend.

each individual? where in god's name did you get that? Selective reading?

only the uncommon may transcend! the masses are too weak, made weaker by religion, to do so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is a doctrine by which all beings seek, biologically, to fashion reality in their own image...

And yet, Nietzsche has always spoken out against systems which perpetuate the slave morality. He believed in the Will to Power, but it was solely as an individual goal and not to change society into making the superman king and the rest of the people sheep. That's a twisting of Nietzsche which sounds similar to what his sister did.

His belief is one of utter individualism. He would abhor someone transforming society into making most people sheep and trapped in a slave morality. Fascism is by far the greatest slave morality system. Social conservatism is not far behind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

each individual? where in god's name did you get that? Selective reading?

Nope, that is the ultimate goal. The individual should transcend and slave morality should be destroyed. In the end, no one should be weak. Society should be sunk so the individual can persue his drives.

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

super-liberal? I quote from Twilight of the Idols:

My conception of freedom.— The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it—what it costs us. I give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic [genüsslich]—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization

These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to self-responsibility. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one's cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free—and how much more the spirit who has become free—spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.

How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which must be overcome, by the effort [Mühe] it costs to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by "tyrants" are meant inexorable and dreadful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves—most beautiful type: Julius Caesar—; this is true politically too; one need only go through history. The nations which were worth something, became worth something, never became so under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit—and forces us to be strong ... First principle: one must need to be strong—otherwise one will never become strong.— Those large hothouses [Treibhäuser] for the strong, for the strongest kind of human being that has ever been, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand the word freedom: as something one has and does not have, something one wants, something one conquers ...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, a SUPER-liberal... or did you miss the super part? Liberalism is about individual liberty. A super liberal is about ultra individualism, beyond the regular liberal's society of individual rights. He definetly doesn't fall in the conservative end.

[Arrian]

Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic [genüsslich]—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization

Anti-society, that's for sure. Uber-libertarian, perhaps.

The man was a wackjob. A smart one, but a wackjob nonetheless.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Arrian: IIRC, he did die in an asylum.