Is there any evidence that proves Nietzsche had anything to do with the Nazis...

Is there any evidence that proves Nietzsche had anything to do with the Nazis? Or did the Nazis simply misunderstand Nietzsche?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_2VK0w_EnAw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No evidence whatsoever. The connection between his work and Nazism was fabricated by his sister. Nietzsche spoke out against both nationalism and anti-semitism.

his sister did something to his unpublished works

Nieztche
>we are blinded by our inability to deal with taking responsibility for our actions
>the ideal man is one who creates his own identity, and looks to the future to create a better world himself that shaped with his own meaning
>neither God, nor alcohol, nor collective ideas of what "should be" can hinder this process
>as such, positivism is one of the evils of this process as it ignores your sense of self, which is like a child who explores all that the world has to offer. Only then can you discover how the world really is

Nazis and the volksgeist movement
>MUH HERITAGE
>MUH PROTECTION OF GERMAN NATION
>MUH COUNTRY
>MUH WORK IS FREEDOM
>MUH GERMAN SUPREMACY
>MUH RACIAL SUPREMACY
>MUH WORLD-VIEW IS SCIENTIFIC
>MUH ITS ALL THE JEWS AND GAYS FAULT

I think thats a conclusive no and don't let Christian reactionaries tell you otherwise.

Also don't take my word for it. Even casual peruse through both camps can tell you they are completely different.

No, but he wasn't some lefty like they portray him as either.

he mock them here and there

he diss the reich at least twice a book

But he's also much more neutral and "clear the air" when it comes down to post WW2 propaganda.

Didn't he die before the 20th century?

>I think thats a conclusive no and don't let Christian reactionaries tell you otherwise.

What about non-Christian nazis who argue the same thing? Not everybody who associates Nietzsche with Nazism is a Christian.

Is there any evidence that proves Hitler had anything to do with the Nazis? Or did the Nazis simply misunderstand Hitler?

Yeah so?
It did not spawn by magic in 1930.

Checkmate atheists

>inb4 "Hitler was a Christian."

Whats wrong with racial supremacy?
I mean most of the people who preach it are really just slavs but aside from them, asians are obviously far more intelligent than the average black

This, and /thread. It shouldnt even be up for discussion as this should be common knowledge to Veeky Forums, aka /NietzscheGeneral/.

They heavily edited Tbus Spoke Zarathustra and had Nazi soldiers read it. That's another reason he's associated with nazism.

asians must think they're more intelligent than everybody else, which should give you some perspective
although blacks do probably themselves believe they're dumber than all others

yes,
nietzsche was a major figure in the counter enlightenment. the counter enlightenment eventually evolved into the NAZIs.

In the end he really was Beyond Good and Evil.
What a guy.

Nationalism as well as socialism are direct results of the enlightenment. The counter-enlightenment (reactionary) consensus was against Nazism.

Counter-enlightinment. What a hilariously retarded word.

Never heard of it, but I am positive that author in your picture is retarded. You should do your best to remove from your brain anything that was written by him.

>mfw it took the nazis and globalism to teach Americans the concept of nationalism

Veeky Forums cannot make connections that are not explicitly laid out for them, and even if it were, if it threatens their opinions, they'll deny it any way they can. There are close parallels between the two. If it wasn't intentional, it was suspiciously incidental.

The counter-enlightenment/anti-enlightenment was the critique of enlightenment progressivism by thinkers such as Burke and de Maistre.

>never heard the word "counter-enlightenment"
>expects to be taken seriously on a literature board
sorry

>Nationalism as well as socialism are direct results of the enlightenment.
>people actually think this

Counter-enlightenment was a real and quite large historical movement reacting against the progress idea of the enlightenment. It should be studied, whether you regard yourself as a progressive or not.

I have a hard time fathoming why so many people will simply refuse to engage worldviews opposed to themselves because they are 'muh, wrong and stupid'. Even when these are historical movements/thinkers with great impact.

Lack of interest in critically engaging with arguments opposed to your own narrow viewpoint. I don't get it. Heck, I'm not a nazi/fascist or irrationalist, but I find many critiques of modernity very interesting and very much worth considering. It makes you evaluate your own subjectivity and gives you a much clearer understanding of how other people have rationalised and legitimised their views and actions in different social and historical contexts.

As a direct result of the enlightenment the French stopped calling themselves subjects of the Louis XVI and began calling themselves 'patriots', the implication that they were loyal to the nation of France rather than the kingdom of France. The idea that the nation consists of the people is the basis of nationalism, so no enlightenment, no nationalism.

t. brainwashed libcuck

just kidding, you're quite right kid. nice job[\spoiler]

Look, I may have had a better opinion of counter-enlightenment if it wasnt, in essence, an incredibly shitty word. And if the poster that brought it up didnt preface it with the incredibly retarded claim that Nietzsche encouraged/led to nazism. Influenced is a stretch, as his shit was edited down, but you can historically leave it at that.

It's not that I want to stay ignorant, it's that it doesnt sound like any kind of shit Id care about, or need to know. I would much rather read more important things if I'm going historical-oroented reading, like ancient Egypt.

People who try to completely obscure and change Nietzschean philosophy using the excuse of finding the "real meaning" of what Nietzsche said like nihilists and cultural Marxists such as Camus and Foucault are just as delusional as islamic terrorism apologists who try to use "the real interpretation/context" of islamic scripture and history to dismiss the clear as day pretexts that islamic terrorists use for their crimes, in the vast majority of the cases they're the same people. They are so weak and pathetic that they can't handle the mere existence of a philosophy/ideology that is so antagonistic to their world view. They just can't accept the fact that someone as great and influential as Friedrich Nietzsche lead to something they utterly detest like National Socialism, so instead of facing the reality and maybe even considering changing their view about modern history and politics, they find it easier to paint him as one of them all along from the beginning. Y'all need to transvaluate your bullshit before it's too late.

Yeah very true, Ancient Egypt is simply much more important to our times than the enlightenment and counter-enlightenment ideals and the political movements that emerged from them.

>nietzschefags like nietzsche
>nietzschefags like nazis
where's the problem here? why deny it? no "they didn't get him, my perfect genius." this is what is so infuriating.

In genealogy of morals he basically goes on about the superior german culture and how jewish culture is impure anf dirty.

>asians are obviously far more intelligent than the average black
>obviously far more intelligent
>obviously

Any time anyone says obviously about complex issues = they've swallowed an ideology hard.

You're worldview is informed by a jenga tower of assumptions

>be Nietzsche
>hate Germans with a passion
>deny your German ancestry
>claim you are a Polish nobleman
Kinda ironic he is so popular on /pol/.

>Any time anyone says obviously about complex issues = they've swallowed an ideology hard.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Reality is simply as we see it. Nothing apart from what is physical is set in stone. The rest is whatever we make of it.

Nietzsche's contempt for anti-semitism is fully compatible with the
proto-fascistic character of his philosophy. It is not completely true
to say Nietzsche's racism is merely a false deception or manipulation by his sister or the Nazi Party. Despite Nietzsche's rejection of traditional racism he still champions a theory of domination based on an inherited biological superiority of "master" types over the "herd", the "strong" over the "weak", etc. In Nietzsche's mind Jews and other (European) races share this more primordial biological inheritance, distinguishing them from inferior slave types. It is a racism without race.

Also, I don't agree that Nietzsche's "extreme right" status is "problematic" simply because radical leftist intellectuals have
appropriated and reinterpreted his thought. Does the fact that
economists/capitalist ideologues make use of Marx's work "problematize" Marx's anti-capitalist credentials? Nietzsche's ambiguous political status is a result of an academic trend beginning WWII which has constantly ignored or denied the aristocratic and anti-egalitarian political dimension of Nietzsche's thought. Recent work (e.g. Detwiler, Appel, Dombowsky, Waite, Bull... ) challenging this trend has demonstrated this political dimension is not a mere extraneous shell but fundamental to Nietzsche's most basic ideas and arguments.

>the world is as we see it
>nothing apart from what is physical is set in stone

this is why you don't skip the Greeks or Christianity... or Maths or Science... or maybe read something other than irrational race fantasy once in a while

Agreed

Nice get btw

It was never race related

>Comparing math and science to philosophy

I bet you read Bertrand Russell too. What a fag.

Why don't you reread what I said?

>Reality is simply as we see it.

Wew lad.

Were I to go through 20,000 different people and force each to witness a mass genocide first hand from their own perspective, I would get differing and in many ways contrasting outlooks on the nature of what happened. Whenever humans attempt to create meaning of otherwise physical realities, they are draping or conveying their abstracts onto nature, however it has no real basis outside of the human brain. The world is indeed whatever we make of it. One man's truth may be another's lie.

Nietzsche may have been apolitical, but he wouldve scored dead-center and all the way down on political compass desu

Well if you assume that the universe is nothing more than the sum of its physical principles, then, yeah, you basically belive the universe is indifferent, and there is no inherent good, no spirit, no vitalist essence.

I can't agree with that though.

>Well if you assume that the universe is nothing more than the sum of its physical principles, then, yeah, you basically belive the universe is indifferent, and there is no inherent good, no spirit, no vitalist essence.

I believe that's called existential nihilism. That's a core outlook in Nietzsche's philosophy.

>That's a core outlook in Nietzsche's philosophy.

I hope by 'outlook' you don't mean 'feature', when 'archenemy' would be more appropriate.

when read as a whole nietzsche is incompatible with anything except nietzsche

when read in part nietzsche is compatible with anything

In other words, you believe Nietzsche's übermensch would be fundamentally opposed to Stirner's egoist?

They are also stupid. Both because of that opinion and by virtue of being nazis

Higher I.Q. does not equal greater intellect, and even if it did it doesn't matter, Nietzsche probably wouldn't advocate for racial superiority. The Last Man in Thurs Spoke Zarathurstra was almost certainly white. you can be a dip-shit of any race essentially.

If it's true that racial supremacy is natural and inherent, there isn't a need to enforce it.

If it isn't true that racial supremacy is natural and inherent, there isn't a need to enforce it.

In other words, if you base your philosophy around natural selection, don't fuck with natural selection.

/thread

>The counter-enlightenment (reactionary) consensus was against Nazism.

That's only because they were hostile towards religion. Nazism came from the exact same place as Prussian nationalism came from, e.g Otto Von Bismarck.

As a concept intelligence does vary by ethnicity and thus technical 'supremacy' is a thing. The problem is that society can't digest this fact without a massive shitstorm brewing, so its' more healthy for everyone to disavow it in the first place. Also, the fact that the great divergence occurred, despite higher average East Asian IQ is a testament to how geographical determinism is much more of a factor than intelligence in itself for state building - China, like Rome, had such a huge labour pool there was no incentive for the bureaucracy to incentivise innovation when everything could be done with an abundance of people.

/thread

The more interesting philosopher link to the nazis is Martin Heidegger who actually joined them.

youtube.com/watch?v=_2VK0w_EnAw

>and looks to the future to create a better world
>better world

I agree with everything except that. He certainly never said that and in fact mocked this very concept.

Half of his work is mocking the progressive ideals.

You misunderstand him. He certainly shared the most of the racial concepts of his time on the "blonde beasts" and all. Only he rejected the moral judgements his contemporaries associated with races. The stereotypical traits his contemporaries ascribed to Jews he didn't deny but found them admirable, not despicable.

Also this applies to more than race. For example he commented on the famous Borgias renaissance family. In the eyes of most contemporaries this family was full of depraved monsters. Nietzsche didn't deny their crimes but instead of condemning them lauded them as proofs of the love of life of the Borgias.

this could easily have been a reddit comment

this could easily have been a retard comment

I'm still right

what about that post makes it reddit

in what way is it not?

i thought reddit was more of a dawkins/ russell place than nietzsche

not the parts of reddit that doesn't like reddit

ok was my post bad

idc if it was reddit as long as it wasn't bad

I don't know I don't have taste

what a reddit end to a reddit conversation

It is but Reddit's understanding of even Russell is minimal let alone Nietzsche. They want to associate themselves more with the big boys
so misunderstanding and thus becoming a Nietzschean doctrinaire is common there

Lol asians are real smart thats why japanese dudes spread their seed to hentai and don't procreate

Are you really this dense?
Have you even read Mein Kampf?
Hitler's entire reason for hating democracy was because of a lack of responsibility being taken by the parliamentary system.
He also believes that a person's personality was extremely important and democratic socialism was suppressing its importance in politics and the real world. Your summary of Nietzsche literally sounds like things Hitler would have said.

>end
⏮️⭐️️

I believe his notes for The Will to Power were also heavily edited to fit in with Nazi ideals.

It's refusing to take responsibility for yourself, and investing your sense of value in something you can't change.

Nothing, and there's no indication that Nietzsche was against it wholesale, especially since cultural supremacy was a big thing for him.

That is true, and in this thread I agree with Chesterton, not Nietzsche.

Before the enlightenment, before modern republics, States were unified by their Kings-Emperors, and they didnt mind having many different nations, with different languages, religions and laws in their territory.

With the modern State, the modern Republics want everyone to be of the same nation, they create a school system that teaches everybody the national language, and in the History class they teach kids to be patriotic.

this is a map of native languages in France, before the French revolution, only a minority of Frenchmen spoke French.
The modern French republic destroyed all the local languages to replace them with French, the national language.

If Spain still has millions of Catalan, Galician and Basque speakers, it is because it has been less modern than France, not because they are more tolerant.

>t. read a wikipedia page about existentialism and stirner and also posted in a few spooks threads

Goddamnit, that video is some seriously sentimental crap. I doubt Heidegger thought the concept of thrownness was to be used in OMG SO DEEP FEELING THE FEELS LOL WOJAC EPIC.

This kind of cosmic pathos is what's absolutely the worst about this Heidi guy.

who has the rights to reason?

>I am just having all anti-semites shot.

You can't use broad terms like "black" and "Asian" when referring to race and intelligence and think you're going to be taken seriously. You need to do more research

That's a very strawman argument against racialism to be fair.

Would you prefer he use negroid and mongoloid?

Maybe Indonesian, Filipino, Chinese, Sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopians, not to mention the countless ethnicitys within those nation states.

t. Non-White

I'm an Australian of English and Irish decent, not to mention this is probably bait anyways

>Australian

>ethnicitys

>MUH HERITAGE
Nietzsche absolutely loved ancient heritage among European identity (Such the Roman empire) and a considerable amount of German identity derives from Pagan identity which Nietzsche admired. Not to mention, the idea of the übermensch cannot become actualized in a multiracial and multicultural state.

>MUH PROTECTION OF GERMAN NATION
See above. You cannot actualize the übermensch in a multiracial society, and the idea was to transform Germany into a nation of übermensch.

>MUH COUNTRY
See: Caesar, Napoleon etc. At a certain point, their greatness will be reflected onto their nation, and eventually their greatness will be so great their nations will eventually become them. Contrary to what you think, Nietzsche was never for the destruction of the state and the atomization of society by encouraging all people to become übermensch. He was clear to distinct that his philosophy was not universally for everyone, and he believed wholeheartedly in social hierarchy.

>MUH WORK IS FREEDOM
Well of course work is freedom. One of the greatest influences on Nietzsche was Heraclitus and the presocratics who thought that struggle is the primary force in advancing life. This is something Hitler whole-heartedly believed in and constantly reiterated in his speeches. For a common peasant, he can find pride in his work as long as his work is productive and advances himself and society. Nietzsche spoke of this.

>MUH GERMAN SUPREMACY
German supremacy is a myth about the Third Reich that did not exist until post-war propaganda. It was about German racialism, not supremacy. While indeed Nietzsche spoke out against German nationalism and denied his own heritage, it was not because he saw nationalism as a vice in of itself. It was because he was extensively disappointed in the German influence on ideology post-renaissance such as Emmanuel Kant, Schopenhauer, and especially Martin Luther. He equivocates these thinkers with German identity during the time he lived, and thus came his contempt for German nationalism. He saw the Renaissance as being a good thing because society for finally moving away from Christian tradition and advancing forward. We were beginning to reject the universal, altruistic, and empathetic moralities of Christianity and moving beyond. However much to his distaste, German thinkers such as Martin Luther came in and essentially revived the core concepts of Christianity and allowed it to live longer enough for it to give birth to ideologies such as liberalism and marxism, both of which Nietzsche did not look in favor of.

>MUH RACIAL SUPREMACY
See above. Nietzsche was explicitly an elitist, and did not condemn supremacy in of itself. He believed to express yourself you would necessarily need to clash with others and assert yourself as dominant over them.

Continued...

>MUH WORLD-VIEW IS SCIENTIFIC
The thing about both Nietzsche and Hitler is that their philosophies were very objectivist and based on their interpretations of nature. The main concept of Nietzschean philosophy, the will to power, he derived from nature. The main concept of philosophy, the Will to Power, he saw as a purely natural thing, and his equivalent to survival instinct as described by evolutionary biologists. He saw that every single living organism on earth possessed the Will to Power, and that's why evolution occurs as a natural phenomenon, because when a creature exists, it does not seek to exist any more, but seeks to exist in a better form. The bane of his philosophy was reintroducing these ideas to human beings because human beings are the only organisms to have rejected these ideas in their lifestyles in their more egalitarian and altruistic pursuit in contrasts to elitism and social-darwinism as a result of Christianity. So yes, his ideas were very objective and derived from scientific theories.

>MUH ITS ALL THE JEWS AND GAYS FAULT

The best example of this from 'The Antichrist,' where he specifically describes the Jews not as a racial group but as an ideology originating from a distinct group of people. He literally says : "These Jews, a small people who turned good into bad, and bad into good, for their own interests. And we're still suffering from this in philosophy and politics to this day." And so while he himself never advocated the unilateral extermination of the Jewish people, he was likewise not very friendly towards their religious beliefs. On faggots, Nietzsche absolutely loathes hedonism. Now what are faggots? They are a group of people who literally define themselves and contrive their identities from their own sexual desires of taking it up the ass. They are a people who are purely hedonistic, and therefore to the eyes of Nietzsche, would've been very destructive. In the beginning of 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra,' he describes the attributes of "the last man," and one of these is that the last man lets absolutely nothing stands in the way of his primal desires and hedonism. That's precisely what faggots are. In evidence of this, Nietzsche himself wrote: "I no longer care about my own pleasure or enjoyment, but of my mission."

Anti-Nazis BTFO!

The interesting thing about Nietzsche is that he was extremely meek in real life.

Also very courteous/gracious though.

His sister was a right-winged fascist and very different from his brother ideologically. In his last days, while he was suffering from severe mental illness, she edited and republished his works, and also let fascists and national socialists make paid visits to "the great thinker" who was in a state of complete mental instability.

The Anti-Christ is considered by most Nietzsche scholars as nonsensical writings and very unrepresentative of the man's ideas.

>Now what are faggots? They are a group of people who literally define themselves and contrive their identities from their own sexual desires of taking it up the ass.
Wrong.

You could say the same about Ecce Homo & Twilight of the Idols too, all written in the last year of his sane life.

Cool story bro. Although a majority consensus of scholars does not automatically entail the consensus is in any way true. That's a bandwagon and appeal-to-authority all in one.

Appeal-to-authority doesn't necessarily imply there is no authority, or that there are no people with authority.

Merely that appealing to their authority ALONE is bullshit.

Stop misunderstanding logic/fallacies.

>Merely that appealing to their authority ALONE is bullshit.
And that's precisely what you did. Otherwise you would've elaborated.

Lrn2debate