Ah right, so Nietzsche was like the Nazis because they had criteria of 'political exclusion'. But of course, all politics is nothing other than the negotiation of political criteria of exclusion. Mundane crap parading as insight.

Although not PC, I think that there was some beauty contained within the horror of Nazi ideology. This 'beauty' a love of social order, a rejection of religious power in favor of science pragmatism and logic, the power of the individual, before a subservience to creed, the subjugation of capitalism or the market to the service of the socialist state,. All of these ideals would to a greater or lesser degree have appealed to Nietzsche.
— Marcus de Brun

The problem with the Nazis is that central to their creed was that they held themselves the highest form of the human race, justifying eugenics, genocide, and any form of racism they chose. It wasn't an academic philosophy, but a political movement, and it resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of people. It was as morally bankrupt of a "philosophy" as there ever was, and it is often rightfully used an example of evil. If one were looking for a more evil and failed position, it would be difficult.

The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race.

Nietzsche considered the individual 'thinking -man' the philosopher, as the superior being. For Nietzsche the 'quality' or 'purity' of the thinking-man's thought, is generally correlative to the degree that it differs from that of the collective, and thereby it contains an inherent rejection of almost all pre-existing and presently existing social orders. — Marcus de Brun

The problem with this post and all your posts in this thread is that it reeks of Nazi sympathizing, elevating Hitler to the role of an important philosopher and comparing Mein Kampf to Thus spoke Zarathustra, as if those two books deserve to sit on the same book shelf. The simple distinction between Hitler and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche related superiority to the content of one's character whereas Hitler based it on race, making Hitler a murdering racist and Nietzsche an important philosopher. Your attempt to intellectualize this simple distinction is nothing more than obfuscation, and it's for that reason I think my accusation that you are Nazi-sympathizing is unfortunately accurate (despite your token references to the horror of the movement).

It is like if I should tell you that the Klan had many good ideas if we could just distill away their racism and we could better appreciate their desire to protect the simple values of the South. That is, if we look closely, we'd realize that the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK is no different than Martin Luther King, Jr. in that both just want a productive peaceful society. MLK wants to achieve it though equality of all races whereas the KKK wants to achieve it through intimidation, oppressive laws, and nooses, but, at the end of the day, they are one in the same.

I do believe, though, in some degree of social Darwinism, and I am comforted by the fact that Nazism and the KKK have been relegated to the dustbin of failed and entirely idiotic movements, with only a few misfits still adhering to those viewpoints, many of whom fill our prisons.

The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race. — Marcus de Brun

Nazi preoccupation with purity of race evolved out of German frustration with their inability to create a cohesive nation-state like France or Britain. They located the cause of their failure in their culturally diverse landscape. They tried to force assimilation through public education. It worked with some of their Czech population, but it didn't work on the Jews. Their Jewish population stood out as a reason that they couldn't be great like Great Britain.

streetlight

I doubt if you are really interested in dialogue. However thats fine by me, I Love engaging in discussion even when it affords the sole benefit of considering and reviewing ones own thoughts upon a subject.

Therefore thank you for the opportunity to think upon this matter as it is one that is dear to my heart. Nietzsche was in my estimation the last Christian to die upon the metaphorical cross. I have to declare that I enjoy his thought almost as much as my own.

Your various two liners.. don't give much grist for the mill, but I do enjoy your anger. Nietzsche was (as we know) an angry man for all the right reasons. Hitler too was angry for all the wrong reasons..

The subject of this thread refers to the ideology of the Nazi's and the philosophy of Neitzsche as it pertains to the organized State. I use the words carefully as the Nazis had more of an ideology than that which might be correctly referred to as a Philosophy.

There are similarities, and the question as to the basis of similarity is not a new one. To understand the similarity we must consider the crucial difference.

The crucial difference between Nietzsche/Hitler's emergent notion of State, and that of other political systems vis: Communism or Socialism or Democracy etc., Is that in accordance with Nazi ideology and Nietzsche's philosophy, a valid 'State' is dependent upon and emergent out of 'spiritual' (Hitler's word, not mine) and or physical human qualia.

For Nietzsche the state (the best Government that is least) arises out of a supremacy of the intellect, and a subsequent independence from the state. Both apriori qualia might themselves be considered as emergent from the 'will' or the 'will to power'. Whilst Neitzsche's is rational and intellectual, the Nazi ideal correlates reason (as derived from the will) with racial purity. Nietzsche would not have succumbed to this kind of illogical correlate.

German soldiers might well have carried copies of Zarathustra, because they may have believed they were establishing a 'state' upon Nietizschean principles. This may not have been an entirely foolish assumption on their part. (hence the subject of this thread)

Other political philosophies do not recognize these complex qualia apriori as the impetus for the emergence and subsequent validity of the 'true' State. Other political philosophies see apriori common- 'needs' (health, education, justice, food etc) as the primary reason for an imposition of 'State' upon the governed. Hitler and Neitzsche see 'will' and not 'need' as the primary determinant of social order. In this they are alike, however they are grossly different in their definition of 'will' and or the will to power.

Other political philosophies value 'freedom', but do not define that freedom outside of the general freedom to do what one wishes as long as it harms no one else and is in keeping with an established moral code. All political philosophy struggles with the practical moral reconciliation of freedom and obligation to state and its imposed moral code.

Both Hitler and Nietzsche dismiss the notion that the state should impose pre-structured qualia in the form of; religious dogma, Communistic Sharing of wealth, Socialism, Nationalism, etc UPON the governed, but rather that the state (Nationalist or otherwise) should emerge out of inherent qualia that are apriori for both Hitler and Neitzsche.

In this sense both the ideology and the philosophy are predicated upon a rejection of religious dogma. In this sense both Neitzsche and Hitler are totalitarian and are entirely disinterested in (as you put it) : "the negotiation of political criteria of exclusion". For Hitler and for Nietzsche there is no negotiation. There is merely the Master and those beneath the master.

(Interestingly Donald Trump operates within a similar philosophical frame of non-negotiation on the assumption of various apriori, that are reminiscent of Race and Masters. (but this is another days work))

The current and previous Communistic or Socialist or religious notions of Statehood do not regard these inherent apriori qualia (race/philosophy/intellectual independence) as a basis for organizing the state, but rather impose the notion of 'equality' for all or most citizens within the State, regardless of physical or intellectual frailty.

Within Democracy all opinions no matter how unpalatable have equal rights (even yours). However within Nietzsche and Hitler's view all opinions are not equal in their rights. Nietzsche dismisses the right to an opinion if indeed that opinion is not philosophically sound. Hitler dismisses opinions if they are not originated by members of a 'superior' race. Although the intolerance is different, both the ideal and the philosophy are intolerant, and Nietzsche's philosophy would be as intolerant of cruelty as it is intolerant of wanton stupidity.

Personally I am not so intolerant of stupidity and enjoy banging my head against it, until it starts to hurt.

M

Nazi preoccupation with purity of race evolved out of German frustration with their inability to create a cohesive nation-state like France or Britain. They located the cause of their failure in their culturally diverse landscape. They tried to force assimilation through public education. It worked with some of their Czech population, but it didn't work on the Jews. Their Jewish population stood out as a reason that they couldn't be great like Great Britain. — frank

I agree entirely.

M

The prevailing view in the US toward the end of the Civil War was that a multi-racial society would tear itself apart. In line with that view, Lincoln gathered a group of black people to the White House and explained that America's black population would have to leave at the end of the war. Frederick Douglas subsequently met with Lincoln and suggested to him that he deport the slave owners instead.

Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate.

Whether a multi-racial society can survive as a nation-state is something we're still trying to discover, I think. My prediction is that the problem will disappear through genetic blending. Races only stay separate where there is something institutional to outlaw blending.

Whether a multi-racial society can survive as a nation-state is something we're still trying to discover, I think. My prediction is that the problem will disappear through genetic blending. Races only stay separate where there is something institutional to outlaw blending. — frank

I think that is a fair analysis Frank. One hopes that the multi-racial society will survive and ultimately consequence the demise of borders AND the ridiculous institution of the nation state itself.

However Trump's and Brexit's revitalization of Nazi type ideology would seem to suggest that currently social evolution is ebbing in the opposite direction, for the moment at least. Presently it is not race but ecology that is the emerging danger and interestingly this emerging threat has no interest in race or state.

M