It is often heard that the works of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844—1900) are obligatory reading for all racially-conscious individuals and that his works were particularly popular during the National Socialist era in Germany—but one question which has always puzzled some observers is why?
It is therefore worthwhile—even from an academic standpoint—to briefly overview his works even though it is not easy to present in narrow compass any clear indication of the thoughts of this extraordinary, one might almost say incomprehensible, man, whose writings have scarcely anything in common with those of any other writer.
Also sprach Zarathustra, published during the years 1883 to 1891, is perhaps characteristic, and less extreme than some of his other works, in which Nietzsche seems to give indications of his final mental collapse.
Zarathustra was not written primarily for academically minded people. ‘To the children I am still a learned man,’ he wrote; ‘. . . I am pushed out from the house of the learned, and I have slammed the door behind me.’
‘Für Allen und Keinen’; (For everyone and no-one) that is how the author himself saw the book. It is indeed for Allen, in the sense that the individual words and the construction of the sentences are intelligible to anybody, but it is also für Keinen, for surely no one can interpret with confidence the deeper meaning of everything he says.
His style often astounds the reader.
‘My tongue’, he says, in a typically strange passage, ‘is that of the people: I speak too coarsely and heartily for the Angora rabbit. And my words seem still more strange to all ink-fishes and pen- foxes.’
One cannot guess why he wrote most of the book in short paragraphs, rather like the verses of the Bible. It is not even clear why Nietzsche should choose to disguise himself as a reincarnation of the Persian thinker; our slender knowledge of the real Zarathustra hardly explains it.
It is at any rate clear that Nietzsche’s main purpose was to oppose the spread of thoughtless egalitarianism and to claim special privileges for the Ubermensch, who was justified—so Nietzsche thought—in disregarding the welfare of lesser men.
Compassion he scorns. ‘What in the world’, he asks, ‘has caused more damage than the follies of the compassionate?’
Yet with characteristic contempt for consistency, Zarathustra repeatedly goes to the assistance of total strangers in distress.
One moment der Wille zur Macht absorbs him, or again he says, ‘To entice many from the herd—for that purpose I came;’ but quite unexpectedly he tells us, ‘I lie here willingly where the children play, against the shattered wall, among thistles and red poppy-flowers.’
Interspersed with fulminations and quiet sayings there are some rather charming and unexpected paradoxes.
‘But if you have a foe,’ says Zarathustra, ‘do not repay evil with good: for that would disconcert him. But show that he has inflicted some good on you.’
Or again, ‘And if a friend treats you badly, speak thus: “I forgive you for what you did to me; but that you did it to yourself, how could I forgive you for that?”
‘Or yet again, still more unexpectedly, ‘It is more distinguished to own oneself wrong than to maintain one’s cause, especially if one is right.’
Towards the end of the book Zarathustra seems to be on the verge of pessimism. In his mountain cave, attended by the eagle and snake that are his emblems respectively of power and wisdom, he has gathered together his höheren Menschen, to instruct them in his doctrines.
Two kings are there, a pope (unemployed through the death of God), an evil magician, a voluntary beggar, a traveller, Zarathustra’s own shadow, an old prophet, a spiritually conscientious man, and—strangest of all— the ugliest man.
Zarathustra fails, apparently, to transmit his message. And then, at the very end, he seems to spurn them all, and strides off on a new adventure.
Why should National Socialists have been urged to read such a book as this?
Nietzsche had no special regard for the German people. Indeed, he even thought of forming an Anti-German League, and he prided himself on his partly Polish descent from the Counts of Nietzki.
As for the State, he condemned it through Zarathustra’s mouth in no uncertain terms.
‘The State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters,’ he exclaims. ‘Coldly, too, it lies; and this lie sneaks from its mouth: “I, the State, am the people.”
The book has no direct bearing on the ethnic problem. Jews are only mentioned three times in it, on each occasion very briefly.
In one place Zarathustra says that if the peasants were to rule, there would be a ‘Mob-hotch-potch [PöbelMischmasch], in which everything is confused together, saint and rascal and nobleman and Jew and every beast in Noah’s ark’.
The second reference is a couplet, offensive to Christians and Jews alike:
Rom sank zur Hure und zur Huren-Bude, Rom‘s Caesar sank zum Vieh, Gott selbst—ward Jude. (Rome has now turned harlot and harlot-stew, Rome’s Caesar a beast, and God has turned Jewish).
The third is simply a statement by Zarathustra’s shadow that he is not the Wandering Jew.
Nietzsche’s real attitude towards the ethnic problem is shown in a much more straightforward way in his Morgenröthe, a book that would have surprised the Nazis if ever it had come into their hands.
This is a volume of separate ‘Thoughts’ (Gedanken), one of which is devoted to ‘The People of Israel’.
“The spiritual and intellectual resources of the Jews of the present day are extraordinary . . . Their bravery under the cloak of pitiable submission, their heroism in spernere se sperni, surpass the virtues of all saints . . . The way in which they honour their fathers and their children, the reasonableness of their marriages and marriage customs, mark them out among all Europeans. . . . They will be called the inventors and pointers of the way for all Europeans.”
One might wish that the whole of Nietzsche’s message had been conveyed in such simple terms as these. He would have been less misunderstood.
At the beginning of the Great War of 1914—1918 the Oxford University Press published a number of pamphlets intended to commend the British cause to academically minded people.
The Oxford historian, Ernest Barker, contributed to this series an essay, Nietzsche and Treitschke: the worship of power in modern Germany.
It is perhaps significant that in this little work the author makes no mention whatever of the ethnic problem, apart from a brief quotation from Nietzsche in opposition to racial thought.
Why then is Nietzsche so revered? Answers on a postcard, or, even better, in the comments section below.
Steve
- Edit
Didn’t he say “When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you”?
I’ve never read any of his stuff, I got the above from Hollywood.
The impression I got was his stuff is a bit depressing & cryptic?
We need something more positive & clear.
Steve
- Edit
‘My tongue’, he says, in a typically strange passage, ‘is that of the people: I speak too coarsely and heartily for the Angora rabbit. And my words seem still more strange to all ink-fishes and pen- foxes.’
Maybe it loses a lot in the translation?
I don’t think he’s very useful to us.
Steve
- Edit
Was the “Man & Superman” thing his?
That would appeal to supposed Nazi mythology.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
With all due respect, if Steve hasn’t yet read Nietzsche he has missed a treat. Disregard minor points as to what mistaken attitude he may have had towards the Jews, Nietzsche was above all the exemplar of divine inequality. He saw equality as the Achilles heel of Western civilization. No two things or people can ever be equal because no two things are ever the same.
Only Christianity, and its progeny, especially obvious in Marxism and the neo-Marxism of “politically correctness “, has introduced the absurdity of universalism. By tearing down the shibboleths of procrustean, ‘one size fits all’ universalism, Nietzsche has been able to free Western thought.
To read, “Thus Spake Zarathustra” as I first did at the age of fourteen is so elevating that one feels a sense of release. A sense of release so great that one would be well advised to take tranquilizers beforehand.
Steve
- Edit
If I end up doing time for political incorrectness, maybe I’ll spend my time catching up on my reading.
I must admit some of the quotes above seem a bit too abstract for me.
I could never get to grips with Shakespeare either because of the flowery language, though he had some good quotes.
I like the bit about “Killing all the lawyers first”!
Steve
- Edit
I like the bit about “No two things or people can ever be equal because no two things are ever the same.”
Also the mistake that is often made in the west by liberals is to think other cultures think as we do & believe in equality, fairness, democracy etc
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ ________
Well said Steve, It’s precisely the idea that we can bring democracy to the world and impose a universal system of fairness that has done so much damage to simple folk in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, who should have been left to work out their own salvation. Unless we take racial and cultural differences into account, something the political establishment refuses to do, our supposed good intentions will only create more misery.
To quote Aristotle
“Injustice is when the equal are treated unequally, and the unequal are treated equally.”
Steve
- Edit
Yes I think we need to sort out our own country, not others & then ally with like minded countries.
Protect but not project our borders & only go elsewhere by invitation only.
Though we need to think about Gibraltar, the Falklands & so on.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Another philosopher revered on the Right is the later – and explicitly Fascist – Julius Evola, whose thought is said to be logically incompatible with that of Nietzsche. I couldn’t comment because I’ve not read either, Evola because I found him unreadable, Nietzsche because I was put off by his reputation for “difficulty” (although in view of Mike’s recommendation I think I may try again). Does anyone else have a view on the logical incompatability of the two philosophers?
Steve
- Edit
Must admit I hadn’t heard of Julius Evola.
Brian
- Edit
You can get Evola’s “Ride The Tiger” audiobook on Youtube. I seem to remember from it that Evola did a decent job critiquing certain philosophers (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, etc.), but that he was not the best at putting forward compelling ideas of his own.
From what I remember, Evola wanted to build a new society around what he called Tradition with a T (although he seemed to be copying Rene Guenon). Evola was dissatisfied with modern culture, which he saw as decadent. He wanted a return to a hierarchical society that would value more masculine, austere traits.
Nietzsche on the other hand, was concerned with the elevation of man as such. He wanted to promote genius, to help the highest specimens of mankind get even better, because he thought that societal ‘progress’ was nonsense and the highest achievement of mankind are the noblest individual lives it produces.
The two projects do not necessarily conflict, but their aims appear to be orthogonal. Nietzsche may have objected that Evola’s new society made no guarantee that the leaders would actually be any good.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
I’m glad I’m not the only one to find Evola heavy going, although I intend to persevere. On the other hand Nietzsche is one of the most readable of philosophers. He is anything but dry. Schopenhauer makes for another highly entertaining read and his ideas had a direct influence on Nietzsche.
You might remember Peter Simple the satirical writer of the Daily Telegraph! He once wrote an hilarious satire about people’s ignorance of Nietzsche and how his name might be mistaken for that of an exotic flower.
Steve
- Edit
These days it would be Evola being mistaken for an exotic very unpleasant African disease!
frederickdixon
- Edit
I certainly do remember Peter Simple, or Michael Wharton to give him his real name, with great pleasure and I have a book with many entries from his column. He was, by far, the nearest thing to a nationalist mainstream journalist in my lifetime. He used to refer to a “reverse columnar effect” meaning that whatever he recommended the reverse was sure to happen, so on one occasion he recommended that “no-one, under any circumstances, should vote for the BNP”!