The clearest statement of Nietsche's opposition to anti-Semitism is in his essay, "Nietsche contra Wagner." Of course, Hitler famously identified himself with Nietsche's ubermensch who would be "beyond good and evil." I fully agree that Nietsche would have vomited if he had known how his concepts were being used. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Leung, H Curtiss [IT] <h.curtiss.leung at ssmb.com> To: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 10:24 AM Subject: Re: Allies against fascism?
>Hi Charles & Justin:
>
>Charles, you wrote:
>> For some reason, the article I linked before (or
>> another one by the same group directly on Nietzsche)
>> says Hitler posed for a picture at the Nietzsche
>> museum in front of a bust of Nietzsche. I think
>> it says claiming he was a follower of Nietzsche.
>> I'll look again.
>
>Hitler certainly did this, although it's important to know
>that Nietzsche's sister took charge of his literary estate
>upon his death (maybe even when he fell into madness?) and
>took great pains to paint her brother as a proto-National
>Socialist. For example, she suppressed the publication of
>his "autobiography" (more a series of bizarre essays on his
>previous writings), _Ecce Homo_ because of the swipes against
>anti-semitism it contained.
>
>I'm pretty sure his sister was still alive and in charge of
>the Nietzsche museum when the incident you cite took place.
>She also handed der Fuhrer her brother's walking stick. Those
>with ears to detect it could hear her brother turning over
>in his grave to vomit.
>
>Nietzsche broke off contact with his sister for her marriage
>to one Bernard Foster, an avowed anti-semite who founded an
>"Arian" community in South America called "New Germany." Foster
>took his life after a scandal involving his mishandling of
>the funds for the community.
>
>Nietzsche remained opposed to anti-semites even in his
>madness. A passage from a letter (to Cosima Wagner?) he
>wrote in the asylum states: "It is a beautiful day; I
>have just ordered the Kaiser and all the anti-semites
>shot..."
>
>Walter Kaufman may not be the most fashionable Nietzsche
>scholar these days, but his book on Nietzsche is very good for
>debunking these misconceptions.
>
>
>Justin, you wrote:
>
>> As I said, he's complex: a perspectivist voluntarist who chooses the
>> perspective of materialism.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "prespectivist voluntarist," although I
>would agree that he is more materialist than not. I suppose this
>depends on how one interprets the strong Will to Power thesis ("Everything
>is a Will to Power.")
>
>My own notion, however cockeyed, this: he wanted to do Heraclitus
>one better and not only deny being, but deny substances. In their
>place, he put a single *force* capable of numerous, transient
>manifestations. It also seems to me that this force had unchanging
>dynamics; he was a strict determinist, and the doctrine of the eternal
>recurrence is an expression of this. (I don't buy the Deleuze-Klossowski
>reading of the eternal return for a second. And I'll always feel
>that way ;-)
>
>> Well, he's not a Marxist historical materialist. But he does offer
>> materialist, indeed class-based, accounts of the origin of morality.
>
>Punishment as recompense for bad debits in _Genealogy of Morals_, yes?
>I've wondered if anyone tried to work that account into an
>explicitly Marxian framework--heck, for all I know,
>you may have already done it...
>
>--
>Curtiss
>