Fascist or Republican?

[Al B. Sure!]

once again...

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."

as for individualism...

The natural value of egoism.— Self-interest is worth as much as the person who has it: it can be worth a great deal, and it can be unworthy and contemptible. Every individual may be scrutinized to see whether he represents the ascending or the descending line of life. Having made that decision, one has a canon for the worth of his self-interest. If he represents the ascending line, then his worth is indeed extraordinary—and for the sake of life as a whole, which takes a step farther through him, the care for his preservation and for the creation of the optimum conditions for him may even be extreme. The single one, the "individual," as hitherto understood by the people and the philosophers alike, is an error after all: he is nothing by himself, no atom, no "link in the chain," nothing merely inherited from former times—he is the whole single line of humanity up to himself ... If he represents the descending development, decay, chronic degeneration, and sickness (—sicknesses are, in general, the consequences of decay, not its causes), then he has small worth, and the minimum of decency requires that he take away as little as possible from those who have turned out well. He is merely their parasite ...

an individual is but the present form of those who came before him...

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Yep... Uber-libertarian (or an Ultra-Liberal - in the original meaning of the term) is probably a good description. He'd hate social conservatism's society, which is necessary for social conservatism to function.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
once again...

And once again, anti-societal views are anthetical to social conservatism.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Arrian: IIRC, he did die in an asylum.

He had syphilis, right? Which, in its advanced state, results in "dementia" IIRC.

Speaking of which, Speer, how does a guy who supposedly favors abstinence acquire such a disease? Inquiring minds wanna know...

-Arrian

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

the human-line concept of an individual is very much not anti-society. it says a man is a society within himself (politics of the soul).

it becomes clear in which people the hatred, the chandala hatred, against this "humaneness" has eternalized itself, where it has become religion, where it has become genius ... Seen in this perspective, the Gospels represent a document of prime importance [ersten Ranges]; even more, the Book of Enoch.— Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege:—it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity, the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored [Schlechtweggekommenen], against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love ...

how are those the words of one believing in equality of all men? there is the uncommon man then there are the base, poor, wretched failures...

[Imran Siddiqui]

When did I say he believed in equality? Belief in ultra-individualism requires a non-believe in equality. Just because there are failtures, doesn't justify placing them under a slave morality.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by 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.

You read Nietzsche with rose colored glasses. He isn't saying "everyone should be free to do whatever they will, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." No, that, he reasons is a corruption of the will. Nietzsche says you have an absolute freedom to do whatever you will." Period. My will to power is directly in opposition to your will to power.

The highest state possible for a Nietzsche individual is to be dictator of a nation, or several nations. You are right, he doesn't care about states or nationality, so in that sense, sure he isn't fascist. But he IS authoritarian. He favors one person having absolute power. Absolute will to power.

He hates slave morality insofar as it hinders that one great man from pursuiing his will to power. I bet he would approve of a slave morality with the explicit purpose of serving one great man's will to power. The classical morality he praised explicitly had a component of hero worship and honoring, praising, and obeying great men.

Forget this namby-pamby "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" crap. That's not Nietzsche. That is slavish. Do what you want, if it hurts others, then who cares?

Maybe thats not fascism, but it sounds damn close.

[Al B. Sure!]

Arrian:

Speaking of which, Speer, how does a guy who supposedly favors abstinence acquire such a disease? Inquiring minds wanna know...

he was quite healthy until the Franco-Prussian War where he served as an orderly. he contracted it there... and it is possible to spread syphilis through direct contact (it isn't just an STD)

[Al B. Sure!]

Maybe thats not fascism, but it sounds damn close.

take that quote I posted from Mein Kampf... sounds very Nietzschean as Hitler described men being disillusioned with religion and competing for command of a new movement to re-evalute all values. that is fascism and that is nietzscheanism.

Hitler says it best when he says...

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.

[Arrian]

Nietzsche said a bunch of stuff. The Nazis picked the bits they liked an ran with it.

Other people will pick the bits THEY like and run with that.

Go figure.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

See the way I see it, fascism and nazism were simply vehicles towards the Nietzschean ideal of power. If you could become master of people through a puppy dog cult, then that'd be fine too. Hitler choose racism & nationalism as his vehicles for accending to absolute power. The power is the key part, and yes that makes nazism and fascism very Nietzschean. At the same time, as Gepap and Imran note, Nietzsche doesn't give a wit about nationalism or racism. He cares about power.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MikeH
Why the wink?

Ming.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The diplomat


3 things communism and fascism have in common.

The United States, through the CIA and the School of America has conspired in mass murder and crushing of dissent during the Cold War.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The diplomat


How about this: when the democrats throw the feminazis and militant homosexuals out, we'll throw the christian right out. That way both parties get rid of their extremists.

Since there is nothing extreme about equal rights, and wanting the same laws to apply to all citizens, I don't see where the extremism is, in this regard.

Not to say there are no feminist or gay extremists, but those who advocate for equal rights and fairness in our laws, are certainly not extremists.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by MrFun
but those who advocate for equal rights and fairness in our laws, are certainly not extremists.

Have you become a youth rights supporter?