Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche

[TheOne]

Is Nietzsche on the Right or Left?

Fools and shallow thinkers (especially on the Right) have always claimed that the notions of Left and Right made no sense. What a sinister error. Although the practical positions of the Left and Right may vary, the values ​​of Right and Left do exist. Nietzscheanism is obviously on the Right. The socialist mentality, the morality of the herd, made Nietzsche vomit. But that does not mean that the people of the extreme Right are Nietzscheans, far from it. For example, they are generally anti-Jewish, a position that Nietzsche castigated and considered stupid in many of his writings, and in his correspondence he singled out anti-Semitic admirers who completely misunderstood him.

Nietzscheanism, obviously, is on the Right, and the Left, always in a position of intellectual prostitution, attempted to neutralize Nietzsche because it could not censor him. To be brief, I would say that an honest interpretation of Nietzsche places him on the side of the revolutionary Right in Europe, using the concept of the Right for lack of anything better (like any word, it describes things imperfectly).

Nietzsche, like Aristotle (and, indeed, like Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, of course — but not at all Spinoza) deeply integrated politics in his thinking. For example, by a fantastic premonition, he was for a union of European nations, like Kant, but from a very different perspective. Kant the pacifist, universalist, and incorrigible utopian moralist, wanted the European Union as it exists today: a great flabby body without a sovereign head with the Rights of Man as its highest principle. Nietzsche, on the contrary, spoke of Great Politics, a grand design for a united Europe. For the moment, it is the Kantian view that has unfortunately been imposed.

On the other hand, the least we can say is that Nietzsche was not a Pan-German, a German nationalist, but rather a nationalistic — and patriotic — European. This was remarkable for a man who lived in his time, the second part of the 19th century (“This stupid 19th century,” said Léon Daudet), which exacerbated as a fatal poison the shabby petty intra-European nationalism that would result in the terrible fratricidal tragedy of 1914 to 1918, when young Europeans from 18 to 25 years, massacred one another without knowing exactly why. Nietzsche the European wanted anything but such a scenario.

That is why those who instrumentalized Nietzsche (in the 1930s) as an ideologue of Germanism are as wrong as those who, today, present him as a proto-Leftist. Nietzsche was a European patriot, and he put the genius of the German soul in the service of European power whose decline, as a visionary, he already sensed.


the rest: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...-on-nietzsche/

[Ixion]

I don't believe N. was against antisemitism per se (he did write a vehemently antisemitic poem which has never been translated into English). He was against the type of antisemitism which imputes to the Jew a racial proclivity to evil, wickedness, avarice, and other 'sinful' qualities. This sort of antisemitism, which is rooted in the malicious envy of inferior minds, N. regarded as crude and distasteful. However, N. had nothing to say about the sort of antisemitism that regards the presence and influence of Jews as antagonistic to the preservation of the ethnic and racial character of the nation, without ascribing sinful or wicked qualities to the Jews as a race.

(Needless to say, Nietzsche would frown upon the kind of antisemitism that you find on the Phora and Stormfront, which tends to be motivated by bigotry and jealousy of Jewish success, rather than a desire to preserve the ethnic identity of European culture. Today's antisemites talk about the ADL, the influence of the Israeli lobby, etc., but after you've spoken with these people for some time it soon becomes evident that most of them just hate Jews as a race; all else is an attempt to rationalise this hatred. This is the sort of antisemitism N. detested.)

[Opus131]

Nietzsche was against anti-semitism because it was a sign of weakness. He hated Jews as much as the next guy, he just thought that bitching about Jewish power was a waste of time and an indication of a low will to power.

[Gull]

I think he admired it more, since he hated Christianity most.

[banjo_billy]

Nietzsche was an inferior type of mentality. Because his education was based in philology, he had a grasp of words and their origin and meaning. With this knowledge, he imagined that he could become a philosopher. But he failed in constructing anything of value because he didn't understand that merely shaking up a box full of words and spilling them out on the table like so many Scrabble constructs, does not make a philosophy.

Unfortunately, people tend to believe that self-proclaimed philosophers are just that. Nietzshe's gonnorhea-infected and fetid brain finally suffered a just Fate for misleading so many innocents.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Ixtab

I don't believe N. was against antisemitism per se (he did write a vehemently antisemitic poem which has never been translated into English). He was against the type of antisemitism which imputes to the Jew a racial proclivity to evil, wickedness, avarice, and other 'sinful' qualities. This sort of antisemitism, which is rooted in the malicious envy of inferior minds, N. regarded as crude and distasteful. However, N. had nothing to say about the sort of antisemitism that regards the presence and influence of Jews as antagonistic to the preservation of the ethnic and racial character of the nation, without ascribing sinful or wicked qualities to the Jews as a race.

(Needless to say, Nietzsche would frown upon the kind of antisemitism that you find on the Phora and Stormfront, which tends to be motivated by bigotry and jealousy of Jewish success, rather than a desire to preserve the ethnic identity of European culture. Today's antisemites talk about the ADL, the influence of the Israeli lobby, etc., but after you've spoken with these people for some time it soon becomes evident that most of them just hate Jews as a race; all else is an attempt to rationalise this hatred. This is the sort of antisemitism N. detested.)

I mostly agree -- liberal interpretations of Nietzsche have understated the biological component of his analysis of Jewish slave morality and its effects on noble races. In Genealogy, for example, Nietzsche explicitly states that one of the negative consequences of slave morality is the mixing of the races. Further, in Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche describes the triumph of slave morality as a racial phenomenon. The Kaufmann translation reads:

The whole disaster was made possible only by the fact that a related, a racially related, type of megalomania already existed in the world, the Jewish type: as soon as the gap between Jew and Judaeo-Christian appeared, the latter had no choice except to use the same methods of self-preservation dictated by the Jewish instinct against the Jews themselves, while the Jews had only ever used them against non-Jews. The Christian is just a Jew with less rigorous beliefs.

[Ivan III the Great]

Guillaume Faye is a jew-serving lapdog, with wetdream about jewropean union, which would be a jewish attack dog against muslims.

Regurgitation of the usual crap about evil muslimz "destroying our lifestyle" and all that. Pim Fortyne No. 2.

[Basil Fawlty]

Originally Posted by Faye

Nietzsche, like Aristotle (and, indeed, like Plato, Kant, Hegel, and Marx, of course — but not at all Spinoza) deeply integrated politics in his thinking.

Oh dear. Faye has just revealed that he knows nothing about Spinoza. The Tractatus Theologico-Politicus is one of the most important political texts by a philosopher of the 17th century.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Basil Fawlty

Oh dear. Faye has just revealed that he knows nothing about Spinoza. The Tractatus Theologico-Politicus is one of the most important political texts by a philosopher of the 17th century.

Yes, Faye's analysis of Spinoza is inaccurate. Even among learned anti-semites, Spinoza's works are understood to be both highly political in content and subtext.

[Drieu La Rochelle]

Originally Posted by Roland

I mostly agree -- liberal interpretations of Nietzsche have understated the biological component of his analysis of Jewish slave morality and its effects on noble races. In Genealogy, for example, Nietzsche explicitly states that one of the negative consequences of slave morality is the mixing of the races.

I think this passage from Genealogy does a lot to clarify what Nietzsche's ideas on race were:

These people carrying instincts of oppression and of a lust for revenge, the descendants of all European and non-European slavery, of all pre-Aryan populations in particular—they represent the regression of mankind! These “instruments of culture” are a disgrace to humanity, and more a reason to be suspicious of or a counterargument against “culture” in general! We may well be right when we hang onto our fear of the blond beast at the base of all noble races and keep up our guard. But who would not find it a hundred times better to fear if he could at the same time be allowed to admire, rather than not fear but in the process no longer be able to rid himself of the disgusting sight of the failures, the stunted, the emaciated, the poisoned? Is not that our fate? Today what is it that constitutes our aversion to “man”?—For we suffer from man. There’s no doubt of that. It’s not a matter of fear. Rather it’s the fact that we have nothing more to fear from man, that the maggot “man” is in the foreground swarming around, that the “tame man,” the hopelessly mediocre and unpleasant man, has already learned to feel that he is the goal, the pinnacle, the meaning of history, “the higher man,”—yes indeed, that he even has a certain right to feel that about himself, insofar as he feels separate from the excess of failed, sick, tired, spent people, who are nowadays beginning to make Europe stink, so that he feels at least relatively successful, at least still capable of life, of at least saying “Yes” to life.