00:00 🌍 Three major strands of political thought in the 20th century were liberalism, communism, and fascism, with World War II determining the outcome. 01:10 📜 Fascism is now largely irrelevant and no longer a part of mainstream political discourse in the post-Cold War world. 03:39 🕊 Nietzsche's philosophy is often associated with fascism, but it's crucial to address this misconception and critique fascism from a Nietzschean perspective. 05:02 🏛 Fascism, despite its extreme elements, shares common characteristics with modern forms of government, such as an expansive authoritarian state. 08:01 🤝 Nietzsche's personal relationships, including those with his sister Elizabeth and Richard Wagner, were influenced by their political leanings, leading to estrangements. 15:11 🎯 Anti-Semitism is a central element of fascism, embodying the psychological need to create an external enemy responsible for society's problems. 20:25 📚 Nietzsche's philosophical influences included Jewish thinkers like Baruch Spinoza, highlighting his appreciation for outstanding individuals and diverse philosophical heritage. 21:22 🌍 Nietzsche's philosophy of perspectivism drew on influences from various civilizations, including Jewish thinkers, without regard to national, religious, or ethnic differences. 23:01 🧐 Nietzsche criticized anti-Semitism and explained that it arises within national states when jealousy and hatred are directed towards the Jews due to their energy, intelligence, and capital of spirit. 25:46 🧬 Nietzsche's beliefs in eugenics were influenced by Lamarckian ideas, which suggested that certain traits or skills could be inherited through genetics. However, his concept of eugenics aimed to create a stronger mixed European race through the intermingling of diverse ethnic backgrounds. 28:33 ⚖ Nietzsche's opposition to the idea of racial purity and his emphasis on the merging of different cultures and ethnicities set him apart from movements like the Nazis, who sought racial purity. 34:17 🔄 Nietzsche's philosophy embraced the concept of eternal struggle, change, and transformation, rejecting the idea of a final victory or permanent state, which was contrary to the Nazi ideology. 37:19 🌟 Nietzsche's notion of the Übermensch (Overman) was about continuous improvement and elevation of the species, unlike the Nazis' interpretation that reduced it to a static, achievable state. 40:03 🔮 The Nazis were influenced by occult and metaphysical ideas about racial purity, which contrasted with Nietzsche's focus on evolution, struggle, and transformation. These occult beliefs played a significant role in shaping the Nazi concept of race. 42:34 📜 Hitler recognized the importance of Christianity to German identity and used it for motivation, despite his rejection of Catholicism. 43:43 🤔 Nietzsche's view of Christianity differs substantially from Nazi ideology; he considered Jesus and Paul to be "the two most Jewish Jews who ever lived." 45:32 😠 Nietzsche believed Christianity appealed to the Teutonic Germans who were cruel, self-hating, and had failed to succeed in life. 46:15 📜 Nietzsche viewed the Old Testament as healthier than the New Testament, as it contained elements of wrath and grace, in contrast to the world-denying nature of Christianity. 47:10 🙅 Nietzsche believed Christianity should be overcome as it consoled the average person and served as a weapon of the weak and failures. 52:17 🕊 Nietzsche's image was distorted and appropriated by the Nazis through the efforts of his sister, Elizabeth, and misinterpretations by figures like Alfred Baumler. 54:21 🧩 Nietzsche's writings were selectively edited and misrepresented to align with Nazi ideology, despite Nietzsche's rejection of nationalism, socialism, and anti-Semitism. 58:08 📖 Nietzsche's rejection of metaphysics and political idealism was misrepresented by figures like Baumler, who portrayed him as a metaphysician and political theorist. 01:00:29 🤝 Some similarities exist between Nietzsche's ideas and those of the Nazis, such as collectivism, zero-sum conflict, and the glorification of instincts and feelings, but there are notable differences as well. Please note that the key takeaways are concise summaries of various points discussed in the transcript chunk. 01:03:45 🤔 Nietzsche opposes racism as he does not believe in the concept of pure races or collective identities. 01:04:14 🔄 Nietzsche criticizes the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the collective good, which contradicts the notion of racial superiority. 01:04:56 🏞 Nietzsche values change and transformation, and taking pride in one's race implies a desire for sameness and preservation. 01:05:38 📚 The differences between Nietzsche and the Nazis, as pointed out by Hicks, are more nuanced and significant than Hicks suggests. 01:06:20 🤝 Nietzsche acknowledges collective power structures but does not morally advocate for collectivism. 01:08:11 💼 Nietzsche's understanding of power, culture, and the state differentiates him from both the Nazis and Mussolini's fascism. 01:16:55 🤝 Nietzsche's relativism is rooted in the meta-ethical principle of the Will To Power, distinguishing it from Mussolini's moral relativism. 01:18:30 🏛 Nietzsche sees the state's expansion and its stifling of culture as detrimental, distinguishing his views from fascist ideologies. 01:22:26 🏹 Nietzsche's alignment with the anti-fascist symbol "Three Arrows" is due to his opposition to fascism, conservatism, and Marxism, reflecting his unique stance. 01:23:47 🎯 Nietzsche rejects fascism, capitalism, and socialism, aligning with none of the 20th-century political theories. 01:24:16 🔄 Nietzsche's thought is challenging to categorize due to his emphasis on solitude, retreat from politics, and cyclical view of history. 01:25:26 🔄 Nietzsche's harsh truths about life, struggle, and hierarchy do not translate into a desire to create a permanent state based on these principles. 01:26:06 🔄 Nietzsche suggests that the real improvement begins with changing mankind's nature rather than tinkering with the system of government. 01:27:04 🔄 Nietzsche's focus is on cultural change, working with people to overcome their limitations, rather than seeking an ideal form of government.
Seriously, this is next level. All of your episodes are crazy detailed and nuanced. The amount of work behind every episode. Besides all of the references, I really love your engagement, you put things into your own words and give clear examples. All these episodes makes history feel a lot closer to Now. Thank you for doing this.
Keegan really is something isn't he? He's a badass doom metal guitarist who tours with his band. Guy is litterally a rock star - and a genius philosopher with an encylopedic command of the entire Western Canon, and brilliant insights into how it fits together and influences Nietzsches project. Then, he deftly connects it to the same problems we have today - but without getting into specifics or current events. Thus his insights become our own, and universal. All in a sonorus articulate voice that's telling a story he's truly passionate about. That's what really drew me in to his podcast. Then the depth kept me returning for more. It's insane for anyone to accomplish either Being a professional muscian OR a world clas philosopher are both lifelong endeavors... ...but this guy!
Intolerable cruelty of mankind. Thankfully we were given intelligent minds to enhance us to understand to mature and grow throughout histories. Nietzsche was one of many. I have much to still learn, may we all. Thank you for this lecture today. I have many lectures to go back through, that I have not done. With the deepest appreciation and respect for these lectures.
Just finished all three videos in this Nietzsche series. Very good work. You do a great job at approaching this in the most neutral way as possible. Admirable. I am someone who has become greatly fatigued with the left/right paradigm, but as such I find it difficult to find others who think like I do, which is why I like Nietzsche. I have become a bit disillusioned, as almost all the content creators I enjoy that criticize modernity and this false dichotomy, have been gradually leaning towards fascism. I can't really get on board with them, but most other people are clueless to whats going on in the world. I am sympathetic with libertarians, and seem to get on with them well, but their takes are often so "boomer-ish" that it feels like we aren't experiencing the same reality. Likewise, I am very much into art and philosophy, and most (my age especially) who are into the same stuff I'm into, are leftists. On top of all this, I am a young man who got into spirituality recently, and it seems the only people who can relate to that are old women. I am truly atomized. Nietzsche was correct on that prediction of the future. I notice a lot of Gen Zers try on ideologies like they are different clothes, so I think a series like this is immeasurably helpful for dismantling these 20th century beliefs now that they are almost completely irrelevent to our current age. Thank you!
Amazing video as always, was wondering if you ever made a video/podcast explaining why you left Buddhism. I think Nietzsche thought that the Buddhistic denial of suffering is in turn a denial of life itself. I also assume that Nietzsche may have (mostly) had an understanding of Buddhism through Schopenhauer. So I was wondering if that had any influence in your decision. I get if this is something you don’t wish to speak about , but thanks for the amazing content once again.
Buddhism is actually more life-denying than Christianity, that's why Schopenhauer derived so much influence from it -- even Christianity still affirms the ego/self. But in a weird way, I feel that Nietzsche had more respect for the Eastern religions which completely deny life (and are 100% the opposite of his beliefs) than Western modernity. Because Christianity is basically just taking the animal that is "man" and putting an enormous yoke on him to contain & neuter his natural passions. There's nothing deep or profound about Christianity in this sense; it's just a social evolution to make humans cooperate better in society, and from the perspective of the individual ego it's useless. Buddhism by contrast does make sense at the individual level. It says, "Yes you have passions, you have an ego, but if you annihilate them you'll become happy." And Buddhism is "experiential", so this can (supposedly) happen in your lifetime. Yet no one really knows if this is true. Meditation has demonstrable physiological effects (it shows up on brain scans), and the transcendental states are similar to what we see on psychedelic drugs. But still, would a person who injected DMT or dropped acid and had an ego death know the truth of reality? Would you trust an ego death experience you had from meditating? That's what it comes down to. Nietzsche hates Christianity because it preserves man's animal nature but keeps him in a cage, whereas Buddhism acknowledges man's animal nature and tries to strip it out of him. Even if N. ultimately disagrees with both, you can see how one kinda makes sense, while the other is just disgusting and backwards, and does nothing but waste humanity's potential, generation after generation.
He's a weird one. But I think people don't realise he was pretty much a neo herderite in regards to culture and ethnicity. Saw the beauty and strength in each peoples, a kinda romantic cosmopolitan. This is something picked up quite strongly in Rudolf rockers anarchist world view as well.
You should look into comparative fascist studies and the work of Roger Griffin. It's a far better method for understanding fascism and more beneficial to what you're doing here than Eco's list. Griffin directly analyzes fascism as a revolutionary and modernist political movement.
In one of his two lectures on Nietzsche here on UA-cam, Michael Surgrue called him the originator of fascism (I'm heavily paraphrasing). I'm interested what you have to say.
One of the reasons I feel this video was not very accurate was that, just like socialism has endless varieties, so does Fascism (and it's contemporary offshoots). Many ideologies on the Far Right today are highly influenced by Nietzsche, as such they are essentially a synthesis of both ideas. This video has value in showing us the real errors of Clasical Fascism and Hitlerism, but not in critiquing current Far Right thinking
Thank you for this great discussion. It's very easy to give a Nazi reading of Nietzsche, but he deserves more care and less weaponization. Nobody gets more misinterpreted than our boy Freddy N.
26:40 you say that Nietzsche thinks mankind can be strengthened by combining ethnic backgrounds. In BG&E he says that the mixing of blood in modern europe has created a weaker type of man who is crippled by contrary impulses. This seems to contradict what you said, did I misunderstand his point?
Nietzsche does seemingly contradict himself on this point. In the same book he suggests that a mixing of European ethnicities into a single “new European” is inevitable, and that the elites ought to actively guide this process to create the best European possible. On the other hand, he says that the “weakening” comes from different valuations pulling in different directions. He also adds another complication by suggesting that a “higher man” like Goethe or Napoleon is actually defined by having these two poles to their character: their inner dividedness and tension is harnessed for strength. Another example of this is Friedrich II. So, one possible read of the entire situation is this: a new European that is not strictly “English” or “French” or “Italian” is inevitable; such a new person will be divided in their values, leading to conflict; inner conflict will weaken and destroy some people, but strengthen others
@@untimelyreflections Thats not correct. In BGE Aphorism 200 he says: "The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in his body-that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary, instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another and are seldom at peace-such a man of late culture and broken lights, will, on an average, be a weak man. [...] man.-Should, however, the contrariety and conflict in such natures operate as an ADDITIONAL incentive and stimulus to life-and if, on the other hand, in addition to their powerful and irreconcilable instincts, they have also inherited and indoctrinated into them a proper mastery and subtlety for carrying on the conflict with themselves (that is to say, the faculty of self-control and self-deception), there then arise those marvelously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, those enigmatical men, predestined for conquering and circumventing others, the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar (with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeans according to my taste, the Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second), and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci." He clearly said most people will fall into the first, the weaker category and only a few exceptions will arise. He also never said in BGE (only in Human All too Human, but this was an earlier work of his, and it looks more like he changed his opinion on that regarding his comments on miscegnation in BGE) that the elites should strive to form a "european race".
Hi, this is amazing! I am wondering if you are saying that Fascism is irrelevant on just a linguistic and philosophical level or on a literal/practical level? Because I would say on a literal/practical level, I would say its more relevant than ever given the massive rise in right wing ideologs. However, on a linguistic and philosophical level, I guess I would agree with you since people like to pit "capitalism" against "socialism" even though people completely mislabel both things.
Umberto Eco's points about fascism are totally wrong, I suggest you to read the book "Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile for a better understanding of what fascism really is.
Isnt Fascism as Mussolini described it the force of state to accelerate production and gain or demand patriotism of the people to feed the public private machine? IE the state uses the business class to reinforce the state while the state reinforces the business class and the gains of production would reinforce the loyalty of the plebeians to the state/business.
Sincere question, in what ways is Eco wrong about fascism's general characteristics? I didn't hear anything in Gentile's treatment of Italian fascism that wasn't captured in abstract (after refining it out of all the self-contradictory nonsense) by Eco. Gentile only examines Italian fascism in that particular writing and I'm not familiar with him otherwise, but Eco necessarily has to be broader in capturing other forms of fascism. Eco is strictly speaking wrong if we're only considering the Italian analysis then, in the same sense that every generalization is strictly speaking wrong. But it's not so obvious in the broad sense. It seems to me like we can only take that broad sense in cases like this, when we're talking about a kind of thought that is self-avowedly opportunistic and subordinates fact to the state.
@@benjaminseng4271 No, Fascism is a philosophy of life about self-improvement, endless goals, unity and merit that can be applied to a single individual or a collective.
@@michaelgrubber1135The 14 Points of Umberto Eco have no actual source, and many important academics on Fascism such as A. James Gregor constantly took the chance to criticize on them. Here's a refutation of Eco's 14 points: drive.google.com/file/d/1H9DbUMDGKgyajlBneGhKfYmeKwBvAEKI/view?usp=drivesdk
@@axmann777 Hmm I'd be careful giving such a generous interpretation to an ideology constructed by figure heads of state, for they will fashion themselves the high priest of their ideology for it suits their own aims no matter how "noble" the ideology pretends to be.
Hey just a heads up, Noticed the Contra Fascism and the Contra Socialism episodes are out of chronological order on the podcast playlist. Might be worth a quick fix for a better flow of ideas. Keep up the great work man. Loving the series 😁👍
As someone who was apart of the far-right and still holds some positions that are considered far-right. My critique of the far-right on an ideological level is that it makes the mistake of raising the instinctual to the level of the idea, or turning it into their ideology. I think human instinct is important because it exists for a reason as a result of our evolution. But I think turning it into an ideology causes a lot of problems. While things like in-group preference for example, are natural phenomena, by placing such emphasis on it, it denaturalizes these concepts. It becomes inauthentic in it's own right. Healthy xenophobia is important, there is a reason this exists, but full on ethno-nationalism is to put it in Nietzschean terms is another slave morality.
Enjoyed your video. Very thoughtful. I may have a suggestion for you since it seems that you tie Nietzsche’s political idea : Thrasymachus and his vision of justice and moral codes. The similarly and difference of his philosophy to Nietzsche.
Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, often viewed as a symbol of human potential, may have served as a psychological defense mechanism to rationalize his perceived failures in life. Nietzsche faced challenges in attracting women, struggling with health issues and social isolation. His creation of the Übermensch could be seen as an attempt to assert superiority despite these shortcomings. However, the disparity between Nietzsche's ideal and his reality suggests the concept may have been a coping mechanism rather than a reflection of objective human potential.
Gotta admit, this is your weakest video. It's not so black and white. Although Classical Fascism and Hitlerism and dead ideologies, their core ideas are having a renaissance in the Far Right today and are catching on in mainstream thinking too. Dugin is a great example of a philosopher which has rehabilitated some Fascist ideas In the same way that although Leninism/Stalinism is dead, the core ideas of Marx still have strong influence Most people in the Far Right today hold ideas which are a synthesis of the Fascist and Nietzschean type. They are critics of Hitlerism and Classical Fascism. For example one of the canonical authors of the Far Right today is Julius Evola. He has a book titled "Fascism Viewed from the Right" where he critiques Fascism for being materialistic and atheistic. And, just like Nietzsche, he sees the state as a means not as an ends Also almost all of the Far Right today don't believe in the racial ideas of Hitlerism, because racial science has progressed so far and we can see what they got wrong. Such as seeing Slavs as not White. And as for anti-Semitism, this is still an open question in the Far Right. Most Rightists are staunchly anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic
I dont know if you used word untergehen in this video, but I just waned to point out, in your latest video so you could see the comment, that h in gehen is silent. It is pronounced ge with extended e sound.
I don't know how truly related to Fascism what I'm going to say is, but I wonder what Nietzsche would think of the flooding of the West with millions of people from the underdeveloped world, helped in no small part by NGO's and totally against the collective will of the people. Perhaps I think of that while watching this video because it's likely a major contributing factor in the slow and steady rise of the far right in the West over the past 10 years or so.
If you view politics as a spectrum of egalitarianism, Nietzsche's critique of fascism would have been that it isnt right-wing enough. Demagogues by definition appeal to the demos, antisemitism was a peasant belief etc.
also fascism is resentfulness based, criticizing the jews because they are "successful" wherever they go and then "hold you down" with their magic and their tricks so they must be stoped, lol.
antisemitism was rooted in resentiment aginst the jews, wherever they go they become successful, more than the avrage person, so they are an easy target for fascist losers
I don't think Nietzsche could be so easily placed on a left-right spectrum. Yes, he was obviously incredibly elitist. But his elitism wasn't a call for some specific political or economic system. He frequently attacked both nationalism, democracy, and socialism, acknowledging their merits in being able to achieve what they aim to do but just finding what they aim to do to be entirely repugnant. He viewed all of them as societies where the mediocre and weak majority are enabled to collectively oppress and control the creative, intelligent, and strong few. One could say fascist germany driving out so many intellectuals because they were jewish or disagreed with the state ideology, and killing those who stayed, as an example of this. Along with the book burning. The one thing you might be able to narrow him down to is as a radical individualist. Any system that embraces and nurtures the abilities of the exceptional, or at the very least doesn't repress them, is one he'd have a more positive opinion of. But once again, he just simply didn't deal much in the nitty gritty of political theory nor economics. Culture and morality is what he cared about. And as far as that is concerned, he certainly doesn't fit on the right wing of the spectrum. He branded religion and everything a social conservative would hold dear as "slave morality" and called for a transvaluation of *all* values. That is the most radically anti-conservative and liberatory position any thinker could possibly take, it can apply well outside the specific things he wrote about. I think the radical thinkers his writings later inspired - Federica Montseny. Albert Camus, Deleuze & Guattari, Georges Bataille, Michel Foucault, etc. - attest to that.
@@KEYEDenergy Correct. If we look at the left-right spectrum purely as one of more or less egalitarianism, you're correct to say that Nietzsche was very much on the fringes of the anti-egalitarian end of that spectrum. The "far right" of that spectrum, so-to-speak. I was just expanding on Nietzsche's nuances, because there's plenty of things most modern day right-wingers would also hate about Nietzsche. Especially those on the socially conservative, religious, and nationalist sectors of the right. And not because he's "too right wing for them," quite the contrary. The caricature of the "woke elitist ivory tower academic" right wingers typically like to brand liberal intellectuals with, Nietzsche would take as a compliment. I think that side of him is why he's been so appealing to famous left-leaning intellectuals throughout the 20th century, in spite of his degrading opinions of the masses. The side of him that was willing to challenge every tradition and our whole understanding of morality and truth, his intimate knowledge and fascination with cultures around the world, and his encouragement for people who feel outcast by society to pursue their own will and proudly embrace who they are in the face of the collective scorn of the majority. There's a lot of radical implications to that, too radical for his own time and perhaps still too radical for our time.
I was specifically wondering about this very issue recently. And coincidentally, it was my viewing of some of your videos that got me wondering about it. Also... I'm just beginning the video, and I'm not sure that I agree that fascism is dead in the west. Hyper-nationalism is certainly still thriving.
I haven’t finished the video yet but there’s this one part that struck out to me that you said nietzsche was WRONG about. How our ancestors are good at certain things and it’s better to focus on what our ancestors did than going another path. How is that wrong? Intuitively and from what I’ve seen in my life, this seems to be the case. Wether it’s physical or athletic pursuits it always seems like children have a high aptitude for what their parents excelled at.
Not that he was wrong per say, just that particular view of evolution hasn't been adopted. I belive there are studies that have been done to trying to observe the effect of experience on gene expression/inheritance, so I mean you could argue it. As it stands though darwinian evolution is the generally accept veiwpoint
33:00~ If the world is conquered and there are no aliens to fight, or some other more "abstract" battle lets say, you can divide the ruling faction into smaller faction and allot them territories and restart the whole process. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
*Man there is a lot of good critiques of Fascism that Nietzsche had, but I'm disappointed in this video for not having enough nuance. Nietzsche is one of those people who were more Right Wing than even the Fascists. Like Julius Evola. When Nietzsche critiques Fascism and Nazism, he is mostly in agreement with them with the exception of some of their core principles, not all of them. This video hides that fact*
Hegel was the real 'proto-fascist', and also the real 'proto-socialist' for Marx's 'scientific socialism' at least. Not that I even think he would've wanted these movements to begin with, but the Left Hegelians represent socialism (Marx was a Young/Left Hegelian), and the Right/Old Hegelians represent fascism (which emerged with Gentile and Mussolini, and to an extent, Hitler).
@@michaelmcclure3383 The aristocracy is leftist and has been leftist for hundreds of years. Which is why the west is undergoing a great replacement with unregulated mass migration propelled and supported by NGOs, banks, and political policy. Common people like myself are being replaced by leftists.
You tried too hard to separate Nietzsche from the Far Right here. You focused on some of the anti-Fascist ideas Nietzsche had, and didn't balance them with the things he and the Fascists/Nazis agreed upon. Not to mention that modern day neo-Fascist thinking doesn't hold the views which Nietzsche would critique
If the superman is in a constant state of becoming, then the whole idea of "Goku vs Superman" because Goku IS superman, in the Nietzchean sense, whereas Superman, ironically, isn't superman.
Great video. This topic has perplexed me for a long time. But I still can't understand how Nietzsche commends the Jews, and yet reprimands the slave morality at the same time. In the Genealogy of Morals, he blames them for the revolt in morality and the inversion of values. You would think that no one in history, not even the most ardent antisemite, could charge a greater accusation than Nietzsche does here. This accusation is more serious than whatever antisemitic conspiracy can be conjured up. It's just hard for me to understand why Nietzsche has such a good opinion of the Jews when everything I've read from him seems to paint a different picture.
because nietzsche doesnt like the Religion, the ethnic group he has nothing against, he also despised christianity specially protestantism( he claimed it to be an inferior form to catholicism), and guess who were protestants???? well the germans
The "Evil" of Fascism has been stupidly exaggerated. My instincts tells me Nietzche would have endorse an Italy that had embrace Italian Futurism. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was a very "Nietzschean" type and you see this all about the Futurist Manifesto.
True, fascism isn't evil, it's just incorrect in it's base assumptions, primarily in regard to it's mythologization of the past. It's also socially self-destructive, intentionally using violence to regress the nation immensely in it's attempt to revert the changing culture, usually failing in it's attempt as it is essentially trying to "go back" to materially outdated modes of social organization. Having shelf-lives of around 10-30 years, either withering away in it's best case as the cult of personality inevitably wanes, or leading to the near-total violent collapse of the nation at it's worst. Not to mention the mass murders of men, women, and children that are common in these short-lived regimes, or the often extreme violence used to enforce unnatural social hierarchies, not making it any easier to maintain power long term.
He wouldn’t cause the core of fascism still kills individuality. Sure, the doctrine of nonstop war to spread your supremacy might provide the perfect playground to establish “strong individuals” but you also kill individuality by: 1. Claiming they are x and embody y virtues 2. getting rid of any culture or ethnicity that isn’t part of the nation 3. adhering to a strict government and finally 4. get dealt with if you deviate in anyway. Fascism is evil, no way to go about it and the hundreds of thousands that “disappeared” proved it
Things are always becoming but it is infact true that things are teleological too. Always the same yet never the same if you can understand that statement your on the right track!
I thought Hicks was unfair in his criticism towards Nietzsche and even though it was a good book ( Nietzsche and the Nazis) it felt like a really cheap shot. Did anyone else feel this way?
Superb as usual. One very minor disagreement: you say that there are not really any monarchists nowadays. That's simply wrong in northern Europe. The majority of the English are monarchists. I suspect that's true for the Dutch, Belgians, and Scandinavians too. (And the Spanish further south.) You might argue that none of these monarchies exercise real political power, and thus the populace is not in favour of autocratic monarchies, which is true; nevertheless, constitutional monarchies appear to be less corrupt, and more conducive to freedom - and I use the word in the Nietzschean sense, as in allowing free spirits to flourish - than any other polities.
The English monarchy is no more a monarchy than a child playing with a paper crown and a wooden sword. 20th and 21st Century English monarchs are essentially LARPers.
Also quite surprised you don't mention ressentiment in regards to anti-Semitism. As this is that exact thing you're talking about when a group of people (the Germans) resent another group of people (The Jews) believing that they're being held down by them. "Now a derogatory mention of recent attempts to seek the origin of justice elsewhere, - namely in ressentiment. A word in the ear of the psychologists, assuming they are inclined to study ressentiment close up for once: this plant thrives best amongst anarchists and anti-Semites today, so it flowers like it always has done, in secret, like a violet but with a different scent. And just as like always gives rise to like, it will come as no surprise to find attempts coming once more from these circles, as so often before, to sanctify revenge with the term justice - as though justice were fundamentally simply a further development of the feeling of having been wronged" - Genealogy of Morality
Italian Fascism included Jews. Exclusivity is a German value. Nietzches genealogy of Morals doesn't flatter Judeo, Christian, values. In fact, Slave Morality is essentially Jew Morality. Victim virtue. The proverbial meak inheritance - Power dynamic.
Also, why is the symbol of the Iron Front on this video about fascism? I think Nietzsche would certainly be against the far left and far right as they were, so this symbol shouldn't be in your face on a video critiquing fascism.
I completely agree that Mussolini was a far better Fascist than Hitler. That's why modern culture demonizes Hitler but ignores Mussolini. Hitler is low hanging fruit, he was fascism for the low IQ. Mussolini was Fascism at it's best (for his time)
Overall, despite the issues and critiques I've made with this video. Ultimately Nietzsche did have some good criticisms of Fascism. That's why today I'm not a Fascist, my political ideology is that of Aleksandr Dugin and the Fourth Political Theory. Some people call this basically Fascism 2.0 but personally the issues that Fascism had were so fundamental that if you fix them you don't have something which can fairly be called Fascism anymore. But ultimately I'm very indebted to the work of the Fascists, for all their flaws they were still the best ideology of their century
I have enjoyed almost all of your videos so far, but this one seems a little contrived to me, other than antisemitism, how is Nietzsche’s vision for Europe any different from a fascist vision? Aristocratic, emphasising physical strength and excellence, and unified.
Well I think there are a couple essential differences that you're missing: Fascism is a mass movement; it's populist and feeds off the resentment of the masses, whereas Nietzsche would likely despise any nationalist appeal to the masses, especially one of resentment; another thing is the fascist belief in purity or cohesion, the idea that the nation and its people need to be clearly defined, cohesive, and pure; however, as addressed in the video, these are "solid" concepts of "being" that don't allow for the "fluidity" of "becoming" that Nietzsche accepts. There's no cohesive, pure class or group of people, at a national or racial level, which absolutely does not square with fascism or any kind of nationalism for that matter. Personally, when I think of a "Nietzschean society", I'm guessing it'd be something more like a monarchy, with a small class of ruling nobility and different castes of people who have relative autonomy but owe ultimate allegiance to their monarch, and any sense of high culture in this system would be made by and circulated among the nobility, with no concern for the tastes of the masses they rule over. Sorry for being long winded, but I wanted to really get into this, and I'm sure there's more to be said about the distinction, but that's all I could think of. I also just want to say, to be fair, I think fascism and Nietzsche's ideas definitely do share some DNA, but I really don't think they follow from each other naturally either, the same way that fascism and certain kinds of socialism share DNA but aren't natural extensions of one another.
Nietzsche was wrong about the rejection of metaphysics, and so many of his errors spring from that. To say that different races or ethnicities don't have an essence, and that these essences aren't somewhat different, is just blatantly wrong
Maybe take a course on advanced topics of metaphysics and reductionism, actually finish it and credit it, doesn't mean you do it. There's also it's antithesis emergence. There's a bunch of 20th century philosophers writing on it after heidegger crossing over with science. It's actually easier than Heideggers ontology. They can't even understand reality in dasein.
Saying that Nietzsche rejected the idea of racial purity because he wanted a new pan-European identity to form by the mixing of the various European nations, is disingenuous. The mixing of Europeans produces more Europeans. This is still limited by a racial component. I don't believe Nietzsche would ever have supported race mixing in the way we understand it today. Especially when you see how he spoke about other races (like thr East Asians and the Africans)
To be or not to be is not the question. It is an invitation. Everything revolves around the hometeam,identity, if you haven't already noticed. Especially when it comes to fighting former injustice and injury incurred by identity. Quite a schizophrenic moral relativism. Nietzche was a philosophical alchemist. A very salty ,bitter, weirdly satisfying genius. What else is the will to power.
I think Neitzche's high regard for the jewish people would not have been maintained had he lived another 20 or so years to see their betrayal of Germany in WW1, their bolshevik revolutions in Russia and around Europe, and the horrors of the Weimar republican era of German history. He praises the jew's ability to strive for their "will to power" but he would have changed his tune if he had lived under their thumb as later germans (and the whole world) have to. Nietzsche opposed democracy, communism, and capitalism, so what kind of jewish power structure would he have supported? Im sure he would have also rejected the jewish push to make everyone else but themselves of a mixed breed, even though he imagined them mixing with europeans in his flawed evolutionary model, especially in light of more modern DNA studies.
Why Nietzsche treat them in high regard if they are slave morality personifed? Was he already crazy when he started to spit this nonsensical judge of character? It is a total contradiction to everything he has always said since the jews are extremely prudish moralists and eternal cry babies. Way before the hol0 caust the jews were the eternal victims of all history who always wanted reparations from basically the entire world for having been enslaved, oppressed, defeated, owned, and expelled from everywhere and according to their own mythology even
1:16:45 Completely disagree. Fascism doesn't see culture as a threat to the state at all. And it doesn't seek stagnation. This criticism fails on the ground floor because the author himself (not you the narrator) strawmaned what Fascism was
By slave morality I assume he is referring to Christian or Judaic morality in which the slave class rose up against their masters and sought their vengeance by restraining their power. You can argue that liberalism is that same slave morality, making the weak and inferior equal to the superior and liberalism is dominant in the global “west”. Of course more than half of the world doesn’t share these liberal values. For example the Confucian tradition places the collective ahead of the individual, and has been shown (in my opinion) to be a more effective solution for social cohesion, however, personally, I do appreciate my individual freedoms. However, I lived and worked in China for some years in the 90s and didn’t encounter anything that I wanted to do that I was unable to do. I guess it would only become an issue if a tyrant took power.
While it is obvious that you have read friedrich nietzsche's work and understand his philosophy to a greater extent than any other youtuber I have come across, certainly more than that idiotic comedian who calls himself uberboyo, you fail to recognise the true extent in which Adolf Hitler and therefore the whole nationalsocialist movement was influenced by Herr Nietzsche. For example at 1:09:39 you make the uneducated and naive statement that that national socialist germany "wanted to win the war to end all wars" . Where as in reality hitler made a statement contradicting your comment in which he said, roughly translated from german, "Germany must have a war every 15 to 20 years, soldiers who's job it is to purely maintain peace merely play at being soldiers". This is just one example i thought was nessecary to highlight. I suggest you learn german and read both Mein Kampf and Hitler's table talk by henry picker known as Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führer hauptquartier. In addition to this i would also reread all of Friedrich nietzsche's work in german as the english translations you read by the jew walter kauffman are not to be trusted. As we all know Arthur Schopenhauer said "jews are the great masters at lying" . Hitler's friend as a young man, august kubizek, said Hitler carried books from Schopenhauer and later on Nietzsche with him. Nietzche's sister gave hitler Nietzsches favourite walking stick with the remark" my brother would of liked you" When we say Heil Hitler, we also mean Heil Nietzsche
What do you make on Nietzche anger towards his fellow Germans. Was is it disappointment that they could waste their potential or was it sheer hatred? I've even read somewhere that one of his "Mad" letters stated that all of Europe should team up and destroy Germany while they still could and that he was having all Anti-Semites shot. If true this is clearly a Man who would have despise the Third Reich and probably sided with the Soviets out of pure anger. No wonder he was deeply troubled with his heritage that produces and was home to the worst type of Christianity, Protestantism.
I guess Germans were as stupid back than in Nietzsche's era as they are today. Always following the master blindly, always building humongous bureaucracies and being non-creative whatsoever. So, no wonder Nietzsche was disgusted at his fellow countrymen when I see today's Germans being this dumb.
I think this is an oversimplification. You know who were hated before they were successful. The exclusion is what created the selective pressure for them to adapt in different ways. Your notion of success is also wrong. Nietzsche never had children, was very weak, had zero abilities with women. Biologically, he was a failure, just like most philosophers and intellectuals. Their whole existence is dependent on people they despise. Make an analysis of this if you are brave. Why does he tell himself that he's superior and deserves to leech off the masses with no evidence of it?
I know right. The most basic principle of intellectual honesty when dealing with an ideology is to go to the words/books and actions of the man or group who created it NOT what its enemies have to say about it.
@Joey Georgiou I can't understand how everyone is obsessed with Hitler When jews spawned Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. Che Guevara All the leftist ideological poison injected, like a virus, into western politics No jews No communism, Zionism, no racial instigation, no hatred between men and women-feminism, sexual mutilation of children ( sexual reassignment surgery) No Fascism or nazism, which were responses to judeo Marxism
Good video. I have a video titled 'My Nietzschean Liberalism'', in which I attempt to show how Nietzsche's philosophy can be combined with liberal political thought.
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles... That is the end of German Philosophy" - Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (1888) "Make America Great Again" - Trump (2016) Welp...
If we take the Nazis' Aryan ideology, seriously we can't really lump them into the same group as the Italian Fascists. The Aryan program is based on Race rather than Nation. Racial purity, superiority and world domination were central to the Nazis. Their Aryan ideology crossed national boundaries as a proto-race narrative. The Nazis grasped at anything that would support their racial ideology be it occultism, neo-paganism, linguistics or genetics. How far the Nazis would have taken their extermination of Non-Aryans and inferior types, so defined, is hard to say. Certainly Nietzsche never defended genocide. However, neither a proper mixing of the races nor his pan-Europeanism would not seem to be strong arguments to count him out as a similar type.
I agree, and wish I’d devoted more time to Mussolini than the last ten minutes at the end. But the most straightforward argument I could give to link the two is that Mussolinian fascism essentializes the state in the way the Nazi ideology essentializes the race. It attempts to make something which is dynamic and living into something eternal and static. Regarding his pan-Europeanism and race mixing arguments: this is addressed in the episode. He was a eugenicist, but one who believed that combining races could be advantageous and generally saw race as a fluid thing: we emerged from nature and became what we are through struggle, rather than being descendants of once-pure races who have now degenerated. This means that race can’t be conceived of as “pure” by Nietzsche; and while his eugenics views are anathema to modern times, we have to acknowledge that its the polar opposite of the Nazi view of eugenics
They never said they wanted to exterminate other races. That’s just something that other people said about them. The axis powers were more racially diverse than the allies , Japan being a primary member
Based essay. I wouldn't take Nietzsche too seriously about biological evolution. Nobody, including Darwin, understood it very well at the time. For example there was no understanding of epigenetics, which. plays a huge role in skin color. The Űbermensch may be something, but it is unknown what. Maybe evolution will be cultural or transhuman. As for mixing ethnicities, hybrid vigor is a thing. Two lines may have different partial solutions to a problem, and mixing them can give both, which is usually better.
Hybrid vigor applied to human ethnicities is such goofy pseudoscience. Mixed raced people have higher incidences of mental illness and have trouble finding donors for certain medical treatments like bone marrow transplants.
Transhumanism is Conspiratorial Clique of Marxian Anthropologists like Yuval Noah Harari, A Pseudoscience. -- What Nietzsche said about Racial Preservation in Anti Christ, same thing modern Genetic Engineer Razib Khan said without even being aware of Nietzsche. (Not a prophetic Prophecy like marx)… but the problem is people generally tend to take many things as cultural mere constructs, and jump into nature vs nurture debate.
hybrid vigor is a meme that only happens in plants you absolute midwit. you want to see what race mixing does in humans? go and live in south america and let's see if you still think that the uruk-hai of that mordor-like sht-hole are the product of anything else than outbreeding depression. and no btw, if nietzsche had been born today he would be sufficiently educated in the studies of modern genetics and population differences to conclude that the data actually points that the mixing of races clearly creates the lastman
Call me a meathead but I have always viewed Christianity as spiritual fascism and I have also used Neitsczche ideas to fortify my left hand spiritual philosophy. To me it clicks. Forgive me🙏🔥🤘
@@fortunatomartino9797 yes you are correct sire. I forgot the Christianity loves to acquire as many submissive slaves as possible whilst destroying native religions and culture. Spiritual genocide I should have said instead rather. Either way Christianity is a vile cancer
@@fortunatomartino9797 the apocalyptic domination against the other or sinners or whatever in revelation absolutely does get used in a fascistic way. I can go into more detail if you can't see it.
@Noah What's wrong with fascism? Are you enjoying your sexually obsessed narcissistic, violent and degenerate culture ? This is what Judeo Marxist gave us
@@fortunatomartino9797 Why does everyone think Fascism and National socialism is the same thing? You can have a Fascist state focused on Religious unity instead of 4chans' MUH RACE!
00:00 🌍 Three major strands of political thought in the 20th century were liberalism, communism, and fascism, with World War II determining the outcome.
01:10 📜 Fascism is now largely irrelevant and no longer a part of mainstream political discourse in the post-Cold War world.
03:39 🕊 Nietzsche's philosophy is often associated with fascism, but it's crucial to address this misconception and critique fascism from a Nietzschean perspective.
05:02 🏛 Fascism, despite its extreme elements, shares common characteristics with modern forms of government, such as an expansive authoritarian state.
08:01 🤝 Nietzsche's personal relationships, including those with his sister Elizabeth and Richard Wagner, were influenced by their political leanings, leading to estrangements.
15:11 🎯 Anti-Semitism is a central element of fascism, embodying the psychological need to create an external enemy responsible for society's problems.
20:25 📚 Nietzsche's philosophical influences included Jewish thinkers like Baruch Spinoza, highlighting his appreciation for outstanding individuals and diverse philosophical heritage.
21:22 🌍 Nietzsche's philosophy of perspectivism drew on influences from various civilizations, including Jewish thinkers, without regard to national, religious, or ethnic differences.
23:01 🧐 Nietzsche criticized anti-Semitism and explained that it arises within national states when jealousy and hatred are directed towards the Jews due to their energy, intelligence, and capital of spirit.
25:46 🧬 Nietzsche's beliefs in eugenics were influenced by Lamarckian ideas, which suggested that certain traits or skills could be inherited through genetics. However, his concept of eugenics aimed to create a stronger mixed European race through the intermingling of diverse ethnic backgrounds.
28:33 ⚖ Nietzsche's opposition to the idea of racial purity and his emphasis on the merging of different cultures and ethnicities set him apart from movements like the Nazis, who sought racial purity.
34:17 🔄 Nietzsche's philosophy embraced the concept of eternal struggle, change, and transformation, rejecting the idea of a final victory or permanent state, which was contrary to the Nazi ideology.
37:19 🌟 Nietzsche's notion of the Übermensch (Overman) was about continuous improvement and elevation of the species, unlike the Nazis' interpretation that reduced it to a static, achievable state.
40:03 🔮 The Nazis were influenced by occult and metaphysical ideas about racial purity, which contrasted with Nietzsche's focus on evolution, struggle, and transformation. These occult beliefs played a significant role in shaping the Nazi concept of race.
42:34 📜 Hitler recognized the importance of Christianity to German identity and used it for motivation, despite his rejection of Catholicism.
43:43 🤔 Nietzsche's view of Christianity differs substantially from Nazi ideology; he considered Jesus and Paul to be "the two most Jewish Jews who ever lived."
45:32 😠 Nietzsche believed Christianity appealed to the Teutonic Germans who were cruel, self-hating, and had failed to succeed in life.
46:15 📜 Nietzsche viewed the Old Testament as healthier than the New Testament, as it contained elements of wrath and grace, in contrast to the world-denying nature of Christianity.
47:10 🙅 Nietzsche believed Christianity should be overcome as it consoled the average person and served as a weapon of the weak and failures.
52:17 🕊 Nietzsche's image was distorted and appropriated by the Nazis through the efforts of his sister, Elizabeth, and misinterpretations by figures like Alfred Baumler.
54:21 🧩 Nietzsche's writings were selectively edited and misrepresented to align with Nazi ideology, despite Nietzsche's rejection of nationalism, socialism, and anti-Semitism.
58:08 📖 Nietzsche's rejection of metaphysics and political idealism was misrepresented by figures like Baumler, who portrayed him as a metaphysician and political theorist.
01:00:29 🤝 Some similarities exist between Nietzsche's ideas and those of the Nazis, such as collectivism, zero-sum conflict, and the glorification of instincts and feelings, but there are notable differences as well.
Please note that the key takeaways are concise summaries of various points discussed in the transcript chunk.
01:03:45 🤔 Nietzsche opposes racism as he does not believe in the concept of pure races or collective identities.
01:04:14 🔄 Nietzsche criticizes the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the collective good, which contradicts the notion of racial superiority.
01:04:56 🏞 Nietzsche values change and transformation, and taking pride in one's race implies a desire for sameness and preservation.
01:05:38 📚 The differences between Nietzsche and the Nazis, as pointed out by Hicks, are more nuanced and significant than Hicks suggests.
01:06:20 🤝 Nietzsche acknowledges collective power structures but does not morally advocate for collectivism.
01:08:11 💼 Nietzsche's understanding of power, culture, and the state differentiates him from both the Nazis and Mussolini's fascism.
01:16:55 🤝 Nietzsche's relativism is rooted in the meta-ethical principle of the Will To Power, distinguishing it from Mussolini's moral relativism.
01:18:30 🏛 Nietzsche sees the state's expansion and its stifling of culture as detrimental, distinguishing his views from fascist ideologies.
01:22:26 🏹 Nietzsche's alignment with the anti-fascist symbol "Three Arrows" is due to his opposition to fascism, conservatism, and Marxism, reflecting his unique stance.
01:23:47 🎯 Nietzsche rejects fascism, capitalism, and socialism, aligning with none of the 20th-century political theories.
01:24:16 🔄 Nietzsche's thought is challenging to categorize due to his emphasis on solitude, retreat from politics, and cyclical view of history.
01:25:26 🔄 Nietzsche's harsh truths about life, struggle, and hierarchy do not translate into a desire to create a permanent state based on these principles.
01:26:06 🔄 Nietzsche suggests that the real improvement begins with changing mankind's nature rather than tinkering with the system of government.
01:27:04 🔄 Nietzsche's focus is on cultural change, working with people to overcome their limitations, rather than seeking an ideal form of government.
Seriously, this is next level. All of your episodes are crazy detailed and nuanced. The amount of work behind every episode. Besides all of the references, I really love your engagement, you put things into your own words and give clear examples. All these episodes makes history feel a lot closer to Now. Thank you for doing this.
Keegan really is something isn't he? He's a badass doom metal guitarist who tours with his band. Guy is litterally a rock star - and a genius philosopher with an encylopedic command of the entire Western Canon, and brilliant insights into how it fits together and influences Nietzsches project. Then, he deftly connects it to the same problems we have today - but without getting into specifics or current events. Thus his insights become our own, and universal. All in a sonorus articulate voice that's telling a story he's truly passionate about. That's what really drew me in to his podcast. Then the depth kept me returning for more.
It's insane for anyone to accomplish either
Being a professional muscian OR a world clas philosopher are both lifelong endeavors...
...but this guy!
Intolerable cruelty of mankind.
Thankfully we were given intelligent minds to enhance us to understand to mature and grow throughout histories. Nietzsche was one of many.
I have much to still learn, may we all.
Thank you for this lecture today.
I have many lectures to go back through, that I have not done.
With the deepest appreciation and respect for these lectures.
Just finished all three videos in this Nietzsche series. Very good work. You do a great job at approaching this in the most neutral way as possible. Admirable. I am someone who has become greatly fatigued with the left/right paradigm, but as such I find it difficult to find others who think like I do, which is why I like Nietzsche. I have become a bit disillusioned, as almost all the content creators I enjoy that criticize modernity and this false dichotomy, have been gradually leaning towards fascism. I can't really get on board with them, but most other people are clueless to whats going on in the world. I am sympathetic with libertarians, and seem to get on with them well, but their takes are often so "boomer-ish" that it feels like we aren't experiencing the same reality. Likewise, I am very much into art and philosophy, and most (my age especially) who are into the same stuff I'm into, are leftists. On top of all this, I am a young man who got into spirituality recently, and it seems the only people who can relate to that are old women. I am truly atomized. Nietzsche was correct on that prediction of the future. I notice a lot of Gen Zers try on ideologies like they are different clothes, so I think a series like this is immeasurably helpful for dismantling these 20th century beliefs now that they are almost completely irrelevent to our current age. Thank you!
Look up Aleksandr Dugin and the Fourth Political Theory
@@emZee1994 Dugin is a joke
@@creator830 you convinced me
@@emZee1994 Glad to be of service
Slave morality is triumphant
You can see it everywhere. Enjoy the decay. It's only going to get worse before it gets better.
Amazing video as always, was wondering if you ever made a video/podcast explaining why you left Buddhism. I think Nietzsche thought that the Buddhistic denial of suffering is in turn a denial of life itself. I also assume that Nietzsche may have (mostly) had an understanding of Buddhism through Schopenhauer. So I was wondering if that had any influence in your decision. I get if this is something you don’t wish to speak about , but thanks for the amazing content once again.
Buddhism is actually more life-denying than Christianity, that's why Schopenhauer derived so much influence from it -- even Christianity still affirms the ego/self. But in a weird way, I feel that Nietzsche had more respect for the Eastern religions which completely deny life (and are 100% the opposite of his beliefs) than Western modernity. Because Christianity is basically just taking the animal that is "man" and putting an enormous yoke on him to contain & neuter his natural passions. There's nothing deep or profound about Christianity in this sense; it's just a social evolution to make humans cooperate better in society, and from the perspective of the individual ego it's useless.
Buddhism by contrast does make sense at the individual level. It says, "Yes you have passions, you have an ego, but if you annihilate them you'll become happy." And Buddhism is "experiential", so this can (supposedly) happen in your lifetime. Yet no one really knows if this is true. Meditation has demonstrable physiological effects (it shows up on brain scans), and the transcendental states are similar to what we see on psychedelic drugs. But still, would a person who injected DMT or dropped acid and had an ego death know the truth of reality? Would you trust an ego death experience you had from meditating? That's what it comes down to. Nietzsche hates Christianity because it preserves man's animal nature but keeps him in a cage, whereas Buddhism acknowledges man's animal nature and tries to strip it out of him. Even if N. ultimately disagrees with both, you can see how one kinda makes sense, while the other is just disgusting and backwards, and does nothing but waste humanity's potential, generation after generation.
He's a weird one. But I think people don't realise he was pretty much a neo herderite in regards to culture and ethnicity. Saw the beauty and strength in each peoples, a kinda romantic cosmopolitan. This is something picked up quite strongly in Rudolf rockers anarchist world view as well.
I can’t really do much with Nietzsche. He is more an artist than a philosopher-The Mustache Man
He wasn’t a Philosopher he was philologist , he was a aphorist who talked about individual’s psychology in kind of poetry.
@@amorfati4096 thought he was Fringe metaphysic occultist
You should look into comparative fascist studies and the work of Roger Griffin. It's a far better method for understanding fascism and more beneficial to what you're doing here than Eco's list. Griffin directly analyzes fascism as a revolutionary and modernist political movement.
What do you think about D’Annunzio or Jünger?
In one of his two lectures on Nietzsche here on UA-cam, Michael Surgrue called him the originator of fascism (I'm heavily paraphrasing). I'm interested what you have to say.
Every episode is better than other!
It is so rare to find quality content on philosophy, psychology etc this channel is a goldmine of knowledge!
The notification gets a verbal YES. Always stoked for some essentialsalts
Thank you for teaching the philosophy behind the Reich
No one dares explicate on their founders
Love that you’re referencing human all to human…not many do. I think it’s one of his best works.
One of the reasons I feel this video was not very accurate was that, just like socialism has endless varieties, so does Fascism (and it's contemporary offshoots). Many ideologies on the Far Right today are highly influenced by Nietzsche, as such they are essentially a synthesis of both ideas. This video has value in showing us the real errors of Clasical Fascism and Hitlerism, but not in critiquing current Far Right thinking
I want to say, that I've criticized your video a lot in the comments, but there is actually a lot here to be praised too
in what meaningful ways has fascism developed
Doing such wonderful work. Thanks. I like Bataille’s discussion of this topic too (in Visions of Excess), and the essay on the Obelisk.
Thank you for this great discussion. It's very easy to give a Nazi reading of Nietzsche, but he deserves more care and less weaponization. Nobody gets more misinterpreted than our boy Freddy N.
So is it safe for me to assume that this video is another cope and seethe about Nietszche's explicit supremacy?
God is Dad 👨🏫
@@whatisthis839 personally I lean into it, it’s edgy hey 👋
English? Master slave duality and the will to power for the birth of tragedy, doesn't mean you do it?
You are right. Left-wing egalitarians in particular distort his works and interpret them in a completely nonsensical way.
26:40 you say that Nietzsche thinks mankind can be strengthened by combining ethnic backgrounds. In BG&E he says that the mixing of blood in modern europe has created a weaker type of man who is crippled by contrary impulses. This seems to contradict what you said, did I misunderstand his point?
Nietzsche does seemingly contradict himself on this point. In the same book he suggests that a mixing of European ethnicities into a single “new European” is inevitable, and that the elites ought to actively guide this process to create the best European possible. On the other hand, he says that the “weakening” comes from different valuations pulling in different directions. He also adds another complication by suggesting that a “higher man” like Goethe or Napoleon is actually defined by having these two poles to their character: their inner dividedness and tension is harnessed for strength. Another example of this is Friedrich II.
So, one possible read of the entire situation is this: a new European that is not strictly “English” or “French” or “Italian” is inevitable; such a new person will be divided in their values, leading to conflict; inner conflict will weaken and destroy some people, but strengthen others
@@untimelyreflections
Thats not correct.
In BGE Aphorism 200 he says:
"The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in his body-that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary, instincts and standards of
value, which struggle with one another and are seldom at peace-such a man of late culture and broken lights, will, on an average, be a weak man. [...] man.-Should,
however, the contrariety and conflict in such natures operate as an ADDITIONAL incentive and stimulus to life-and if, on the other hand, in
addition to their powerful and irreconcilable instincts, they have also inherited and indoctrinated into them a proper mastery and subtlety for carrying on the conflict with themselves (that is to say, the faculty of self-control and self-deception), there then arise those marvelously
incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, those enigmatical men, predestined for conquering and circumventing others, the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar (with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeans according to my taste, the Hohenstaufen,
Frederick the Second), and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci."
He clearly said most people will fall into the first, the weaker category and only a few exceptions will arise. He also never said in BGE (only in Human All too Human, but this was an earlier work of his, and it looks more like he changed his opinion on that regarding his comments on miscegnation in BGE) that the elites should strive to form a "european race".
exceptionally good talk, exceptionally good channel, thanks as always
Hi, this is amazing! I am wondering if you are saying that Fascism is irrelevant on just a linguistic and philosophical level or on a literal/practical level? Because I would say on a literal/practical level, I would say its more relevant than ever given the massive rise in right wing ideologs. However, on a linguistic and philosophical level, I guess I would agree with you since people like to pit "capitalism" against "socialism" even though people completely mislabel both things.
Umberto Eco's points about fascism are totally wrong, I suggest you to read the book "Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile for a better understanding of what fascism really is.
Isnt Fascism as Mussolini described it the force of state to accelerate production and gain or demand patriotism of the people to feed the public private machine? IE the state uses the business class to reinforce the state while the state reinforces the business class and the gains of production would reinforce the loyalty of the plebeians to the state/business.
Sincere question, in what ways is Eco wrong about fascism's general characteristics? I didn't hear anything in Gentile's treatment of Italian fascism that wasn't captured in abstract (after refining it out of all the self-contradictory nonsense) by Eco. Gentile only examines Italian fascism in that particular writing and I'm not familiar with him otherwise, but Eco necessarily has to be broader in capturing other forms of fascism. Eco is strictly speaking wrong if we're only considering the Italian analysis then, in the same sense that every generalization is strictly speaking wrong. But it's not so obvious in the broad sense. It seems to me like we can only take that broad sense in cases like this, when we're talking about a kind of thought that is self-avowedly opportunistic and subordinates fact to the state.
@@benjaminseng4271 No, Fascism is a philosophy of life about self-improvement, endless goals, unity and merit that can be applied to a single individual or a collective.
@@michaelgrubber1135The 14 Points of Umberto Eco have no actual source, and many important academics on Fascism such as A. James Gregor constantly took the chance to criticize on them.
Here's a refutation of Eco's 14 points: drive.google.com/file/d/1H9DbUMDGKgyajlBneGhKfYmeKwBvAEKI/view?usp=drivesdk
@@axmann777 Hmm I'd be careful giving such a generous interpretation to an ideology constructed by figure heads of state, for they will fashion themselves the high priest of their ideology for it suits their own aims no matter how "noble" the ideology pretends to be.
Hey just a heads up, Noticed the Contra Fascism and the Contra Socialism episodes are out of chronological order on the podcast playlist. Might be worth a quick fix for a better flow of ideas. Keep up the great work man. Loving the series 😁👍
As someone who was apart of the far-right and still holds some positions that are considered far-right. My critique of the far-right on an ideological level is that it makes the mistake of raising the instinctual to the level of the idea, or turning it into their ideology. I think human instinct is important because it exists for a reason as a result of our evolution. But I think turning it into an ideology causes a lot of problems. While things like in-group preference for example, are natural phenomena, by placing such emphasis on it, it denaturalizes these concepts. It becomes inauthentic in it's own right. Healthy xenophobia is important, there is a reason this exists, but full on ethno-nationalism is to put it in Nietzschean terms is another slave morality.
Enjoyed your video. Very thoughtful.
I may have a suggestion for you since it seems that you tie Nietzsche’s political idea : Thrasymachus and his vision of justice and moral codes. The similarly and difference of his philosophy to Nietzsche.
Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch, often viewed as a symbol of human potential, may have served as a psychological defense mechanism to rationalize his perceived failures in life. Nietzsche faced challenges in attracting women, struggling with health issues and social isolation. His creation of the Übermensch could be seen as an attempt to assert superiority despite these shortcomings. However, the disparity between Nietzsche's ideal and his reality suggests the concept may have been a coping mechanism rather than a reflection of objective human potential.
Things happen in bubbles. Reflexive. Politically, economically, socially.
Gotta admit, this is your weakest video. It's not so black and white. Although Classical Fascism and Hitlerism and dead ideologies, their core ideas are having a renaissance in the Far Right today and are catching on in mainstream thinking too. Dugin is a great example of a philosopher which has rehabilitated some Fascist ideas
In the same way that although Leninism/Stalinism is dead, the core ideas of Marx still have strong influence
Most people in the Far Right today hold ideas which are a synthesis of the Fascist and Nietzschean type. They are critics of Hitlerism and Classical Fascism. For example one of the canonical authors of the Far Right today is Julius Evola. He has a book titled "Fascism Viewed from the Right" where he critiques Fascism for being materialistic and atheistic. And, just like Nietzsche, he sees the state as a means not as an ends
Also almost all of the Far Right today don't believe in the racial ideas of Hitlerism, because racial science has progressed so far and we can see what they got wrong. Such as seeing Slavs as not White. And as for anti-Semitism, this is still an open question in the Far Right. Most Rightists are staunchly anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic
I want to say, that I've criticized your video a lot in the comments, but there is actually a lot here to be praised too
I dont know if you used word untergehen in this video, but I just waned to point out, in your latest video so you could see the comment, that h in gehen is silent. It is pronounced ge with extended e sound.
Sometimes you say things that make me think I'm listening to a fellow anarchist. Can never be sure, though.
I don't know how truly related to Fascism what I'm going to say is, but I wonder what Nietzsche would think of the flooding of the West with millions of people from the underdeveloped world, helped in no small part by NGO's and totally against the collective will of the people.
Perhaps I think of that while watching this video because it's likely a major contributing factor in the slow and steady rise of the far right in the West over the past 10 years or so.
Your work is amazing, just amazing. Love your channel.
Another great video. Thanks so much for your hard work.
If you view politics as a spectrum of egalitarianism, Nietzsche's critique of fascism would have been that it isnt right-wing enough. Demagogues by definition appeal to the demos, antisemitism was a peasant belief etc.
also fascism is resentfulness based, criticizing the jews because they are "successful" wherever they go and then "hold you down" with their magic and their tricks so they must be stoped, lol.
antisemitism was rooted in resentiment aginst the jews, wherever they go they become successful, more than the avrage person, so they are an easy target for fascist losers
I don't think Nietzsche could be so easily placed on a left-right spectrum. Yes, he was obviously incredibly elitist. But his elitism wasn't a call for some specific political or economic system. He frequently attacked both nationalism, democracy, and socialism, acknowledging their merits in being able to achieve what they aim to do but just finding what they aim to do to be entirely repugnant. He viewed all of them as societies where the mediocre and weak majority are enabled to collectively oppress and control the creative, intelligent, and strong few. One could say fascist germany driving out so many intellectuals because they were jewish or disagreed with the state ideology, and killing those who stayed, as an example of this. Along with the book burning. The one thing you might be able to narrow him down to is as a radical individualist. Any system that embraces and nurtures the abilities of the exceptional, or at the very least doesn't repress them, is one he'd have a more positive opinion of. But once again, he just simply didn't deal much in the nitty gritty of political theory nor economics. Culture and morality is what he cared about. And as far as that is concerned, he certainly doesn't fit on the right wing of the spectrum. He branded religion and everything a social conservative would hold dear as "slave morality" and called for a transvaluation of *all* values. That is the most radically anti-conservative and liberatory position any thinker could possibly take, it can apply well outside the specific things he wrote about. I think the radical thinkers his writings later inspired - Federica Montseny. Albert Camus, Deleuze & Guattari, Georges Bataille, Michel Foucault, etc. - attest to that.
@@victorconway444 I agree with much of what you said, but I wasn't implying that he's a conservative.
@@KEYEDenergy Correct. If we look at the left-right spectrum purely as one of more or less egalitarianism, you're correct to say that Nietzsche was very much on the fringes of the anti-egalitarian end of that spectrum. The "far right" of that spectrum, so-to-speak.
I was just expanding on Nietzsche's nuances, because there's plenty of things most modern day right-wingers would also hate about Nietzsche. Especially those on the socially conservative, religious, and nationalist sectors of the right. And not because he's "too right wing for them," quite the contrary.
The caricature of the "woke elitist ivory tower academic" right wingers typically like to brand liberal intellectuals with, Nietzsche would take as a compliment. I think that side of him is why he's been so appealing to famous left-leaning intellectuals throughout the 20th century, in spite of his degrading opinions of the masses. The side of him that was willing to challenge every tradition and our whole understanding of morality and truth, his intimate knowledge and fascination with cultures around the world, and his encouragement for people who feel outcast by society to pursue their own will and proudly embrace who they are in the face of the collective scorn of the majority. There's a lot of radical implications to that, too radical for his own time and perhaps still too radical for our time.
I was specifically wondering about this very issue recently. And coincidentally, it was my viewing of some of your videos that got me wondering about it.
Also...
I'm just beginning the video, and I'm not sure that I agree that fascism is dead in the west. Hyper-nationalism is certainly still thriving.
I haven’t finished the video yet but there’s this one part that struck out to me that you said nietzsche was WRONG about. How our ancestors are good at certain things and it’s better to focus on what our ancestors did than going another path. How is that wrong? Intuitively and from what I’ve seen in my life, this seems to be the case. Wether it’s physical or athletic pursuits it always seems like children have a high aptitude for what their parents excelled at.
Maybe I misunderstood?
Not that he was wrong per say, just that particular view of evolution hasn't been adopted. I belive there are studies that have been done to trying to observe the effect of experience on gene expression/inheritance, so I mean you could argue it. As it stands though darwinian evolution is the generally accept veiwpoint
@@paulrowe4409 Dawkins and memetics just proves nietzche
I am not an expert in biology and genetics whatsoever, but I heard that Lamarck's theories evaluated more positively "recently".
@@csabas.6342 That's why I believe Keegan made the distinction there, we haven't adopted a Neiztchian world view in the west.
I’ve been looking forward to this.
33:00~ If the world is conquered and there are no aliens to fight, or some other more "abstract" battle lets say, you can divide the ruling faction into smaller faction and allot them territories and restart the whole process. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
What do you think of Stephen Hicks' Nietzsche and the Nazis?
It’s addressed in the video
@@untimelyreflections Okay, thanks.
For anyone interested: 1:00:10
*Man there is a lot of good critiques of Fascism that Nietzsche had, but I'm disappointed in this video for not having enough nuance. Nietzsche is one of those people who were more Right Wing than even the Fascists. Like Julius Evola. When Nietzsche critiques Fascism and Nazism, he is mostly in agreement with them with the exception of some of their core principles, not all of them. This video hides that fact*
Terrific podcast, again.
Hegel was the real 'proto-fascist', and also the real 'proto-socialist' for Marx's 'scientific socialism' at least. Not that I even think he would've wanted these movements to begin with, but the Left Hegelians represent socialism (Marx was a Young/Left Hegelian), and the Right/Old Hegelians represent fascism (which emerged with Gentile and Mussolini, and to an extent, Hitler).
Nietzsche being thought of as right wing is as stupid as Joan of Arc being considered a proto-feminist.
@@michaelmcclure3383 The aristocracy is leftist and has been leftist for hundreds of years. Which is why the west is undergoing a great replacement with unregulated mass migration propelled and supported by NGOs, banks, and political policy. Common people like myself are being replaced by leftists.
@@michaelmcclure3383 that's right wing
Nietzsche is perhaps the most right wing thinker in history. He is more right wing than Hitl3r
You tried too hard to separate Nietzsche from the Far Right here. You focused on some of the anti-Fascist ideas Nietzsche had, and didn't balance them with the things he and the Fascists/Nazis agreed upon. Not to mention that modern day neo-Fascist thinking doesn't hold the views which Nietzsche would critique
I want to say, that I've criticized your video a lot in the comments, but there is actually a lot here to be praised too
If the superman is in a constant state of becoming, then the whole idea of "Goku vs Superman" because Goku IS superman, in the Nietzchean sense, whereas Superman, ironically, isn't superman.
Great video. This topic has perplexed me for a long time. But I still can't understand how Nietzsche commends the Jews, and yet reprimands the slave morality at the same time. In the Genealogy of Morals, he blames them for the revolt in morality and the inversion of values. You would think that no one in history, not even the most ardent antisemite, could charge a greater accusation than Nietzsche does here. This accusation is more serious than whatever antisemitic conspiracy can be conjured up. It's just hard for me to understand why Nietzsche has such a good opinion of the Jews when everything I've read from him seems to paint a different picture.
He liked Jews because the German Jews of his time were highly successful.
Its important to be reminded that when he says "the Jews" in the genealogy of morals, he really means the jewish priest.
because nietzsche doesnt like the Religion, the ethnic group he has nothing against, he also despised christianity specially protestantism( he claimed it to be an inferior form to catholicism), and guess who were protestants???? well the germans
@@ronithazan1 he is talking of all of them because all jews are priests of the soul
The great replacement
The "Evil" of Fascism has been stupidly exaggerated. My instincts tells me Nietzche would have endorse an Italy that had embrace Italian Futurism. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was a very "Nietzschean" type and you see this all about the Futurist Manifesto.
True, fascism isn't evil, it's just incorrect in it's base assumptions, primarily in regard to it's mythologization of the past. It's also socially self-destructive, intentionally using violence to regress the nation immensely in it's attempt to revert the changing culture, usually failing in it's attempt as it is essentially trying to "go back" to materially outdated modes of social organization. Having shelf-lives of around 10-30 years, either withering away in it's best case as the cult of personality inevitably wanes, or leading to the near-total violent collapse of the nation at it's worst.
Not to mention the mass murders of men, women, and children that are common in these short-lived regimes, or the often extreme violence used to enforce unnatural social hierarchies, not making it any easier to maintain power long term.
He wouldn’t cause the core of fascism still kills individuality. Sure, the doctrine of nonstop war to spread your supremacy might provide the perfect playground to establish “strong individuals” but you also kill individuality by: 1. Claiming they are x and embody y virtues 2. getting rid of any culture or ethnicity that isn’t part of the nation 3. adhering to a strict government and finally 4. get dealt with if you deviate in anyway.
Fascism is evil, no way to go about it and the hundreds of thousands that “disappeared” proved it
😊😊
😊😊
The evil has been “stupidly” exaggerated???
How tf did you come to that conclusion 😂
Things are always becoming but it is infact true that things are teleological too. Always the same yet never the same if you can understand that statement your on the right track!
If Fred could only see the expansion of the apartheid / ethno state being undertaken right now by Greater Israel.
Nietzsche would call it "bad"?
Israel needs a Napoleon not this slimy Netanyahu - Nietzsche probably
I thought Hicks was unfair in his criticism towards Nietzsche and even though it was a good book ( Nietzsche and the Nazis) it felt like a really cheap shot. Did anyone else feel this way?
Superb as usual. One very minor disagreement: you say that there are not really any monarchists nowadays. That's simply wrong in northern Europe. The majority of the English are monarchists. I suspect that's true for the Dutch, Belgians, and Scandinavians too. (And the Spanish further south.) You might argue that none of these monarchies exercise real political power, and thus the populace is not in favour of autocratic monarchies, which is true; nevertheless, constitutional monarchies appear to be less corrupt, and more conducive to freedom - and I use the word in the Nietzschean sense, as in allowing free spirits to flourish - than any other polities.
The English monarchy is no more a monarchy than a child playing with a paper crown and a wooden sword. 20th and 21st Century English monarchs are essentially LARPers.
Also quite surprised you don't mention ressentiment in regards to anti-Semitism. As this is that exact thing you're talking about when a group of people (the Germans) resent another group of people (The Jews) believing that they're being held down by them.
"Now a derogatory mention of recent attempts to seek the origin of justice elsewhere, - namely in ressentiment. A word in the ear of the psychologists, assuming they are inclined to study ressentiment close up for once: this plant thrives best amongst anarchists and anti-Semites today, so it flowers like it always has done, in secret, like a violet but with a different scent. And just as like always gives rise to like, it will come as no surprise to find attempts coming once more from these circles, as so often before, to sanctify revenge with the term justice - as though justice were fundamentally simply a further development of the feeling of having been wronged" - Genealogy of Morality
Italian Fascism included Jews. Exclusivity is a German value. Nietzches genealogy of Morals doesn't flatter Judeo, Christian, values. In fact, Slave Morality is essentially Jew Morality. Victim virtue. The proverbial meak inheritance - Power dynamic.
Jew morality? Sounds like you got dropped on your head too many times
@@noah5291 In the Judeo Christian tradition. The source, or sauce, of " Social Justice ", pending their approval, of course.
You ever heard of Emil Maurice?
The genealogy of incest apparently contradicts the morality of ressentiment and authorities regimes. You're seriously interested in this anti thesis?
Also, why is the symbol of the Iron Front on this video about fascism? I think Nietzsche would certainly be against the far left and far right as they were, so this symbol shouldn't be in your face on a video critiquing fascism.
I completely agree that Mussolini was a far better Fascist than Hitler. That's why modern culture demonizes Hitler but ignores Mussolini. Hitler is low hanging fruit, he was fascism for the low IQ. Mussolini was Fascism at it's best (for his time)
The 3 strands of political thought you said “that emerged” were ALL City of London/Wall Street operations……
47:40 political needs.
Yes re epigenetics, see Denis Noble and Levine
Overall, despite the issues and critiques I've made with this video. Ultimately Nietzsche did have some good criticisms of Fascism. That's why today I'm not a Fascist, my political ideology is that of Aleksandr Dugin and the Fourth Political Theory. Some people call this basically Fascism 2.0 but personally the issues that Fascism had were so fundamental that if you fix them you don't have something which can fairly be called Fascism anymore. But ultimately I'm very indebted to the work of the Fascists, for all their flaws they were still the best ideology of their century
I have enjoyed almost all of your videos so far, but this one seems a little contrived to me, other than antisemitism, how is Nietzsche’s vision for Europe any different from a fascist vision? Aristocratic, emphasising physical strength and excellence, and unified.
Well I think there are a couple essential differences that you're missing: Fascism is a mass movement; it's populist and feeds off the resentment of the masses, whereas Nietzsche would likely despise any nationalist appeal to the masses, especially one of resentment; another thing is the fascist belief in purity or cohesion, the idea that the nation and its people need to be clearly defined, cohesive, and pure; however, as addressed in the video, these are "solid" concepts of "being" that don't allow for the "fluidity" of "becoming" that Nietzsche accepts. There's no cohesive, pure class or group of people, at a national or racial level, which absolutely does not square with fascism or any kind of nationalism for that matter. Personally, when I think of a "Nietzschean society", I'm guessing it'd be something more like a monarchy, with a small class of ruling nobility and different castes of people who have relative autonomy but owe ultimate allegiance to their monarch, and any sense of high culture in this system would be made by and circulated among the nobility, with no concern for the tastes of the masses they rule over. Sorry for being long winded, but I wanted to really get into this, and I'm sure there's more to be said about the distinction, but that's all I could think of. I also just want to say, to be fair, I think fascism and Nietzsche's ideas definitely do share some DNA, but I really don't think they follow from each other naturally either, the same way that fascism and certain kinds of socialism share DNA but aren't natural extensions of one another.
Seems like Fascism is coming back.
I doubt it, its pretty much dead
build back better
Nietzsche was wrong about the rejection of metaphysics, and so many of his errors spring from that. To say that different races or ethnicities don't have an essence, and that these essences aren't somewhat different, is just blatantly wrong
Maybe take a course on advanced topics of metaphysics and reductionism, actually finish it and credit it, doesn't mean you do it. There's also it's antithesis emergence. There's a bunch of 20th century philosophers writing on it after heidegger crossing over with science. It's actually easier than Heideggers ontology. They can't even understand reality in dasein.
Saying that Nietzsche rejected the idea of racial purity because he wanted a new pan-European identity to form by the mixing of the various European nations, is disingenuous. The mixing of Europeans produces more Europeans. This is still limited by a racial component. I don't believe Nietzsche would ever have supported race mixing in the way we understand it today. Especially when you see how he spoke about other races (like thr East Asians and the Africans)
I want to say, that I've criticized your video a lot in the comments, but there is actually a lot here to be praised too
Saying that European is a race sounds kind of a joke, just as saying that Asian and African are races as well.
To be or not to be is not the question. It is an invitation. Everything revolves around the hometeam,identity, if you haven't already noticed. Especially when it comes to fighting former injustice and injury incurred by identity. Quite a schizophrenic moral relativism. Nietzche was a philosophical alchemist. A very salty ,bitter, weirdly satisfying genius. What else is the will to power.
I think Neitzche's high regard for the jewish people would not have been maintained had he lived another 20 or so years to see their betrayal of Germany in WW1, their bolshevik revolutions in Russia and around Europe, and the horrors of the Weimar republican era of German history. He praises the jew's ability to strive for their "will to power" but he would have changed his tune if he had lived under their thumb as later germans (and the whole world) have to. Nietzsche opposed democracy, communism, and capitalism, so what kind of jewish power structure would he have supported? Im sure he would have also rejected the jewish push to make everyone else but themselves of a mixed breed, even though he imagined them mixing with europeans in his flawed evolutionary model, especially in light of more modern DNA studies.
Why Nietzsche treat them in high regard if they are slave morality personifed? Was he already crazy when he started to spit this nonsensical judge of character? It is a total contradiction to everything he has always said since the jews are extremely prudish moralists and eternal cry babies. Way before the hol0 caust the jews were the eternal victims of all history who always wanted reparations from basically the entire world for having been enslaved, oppressed, defeated, owned, and expelled from everywhere and according to their own mythology even
1:16:45 Completely disagree. Fascism doesn't see culture as a threat to the state at all. And it doesn't seek stagnation. This criticism fails on the ground floor because the author himself (not you the narrator) strawmaned what Fascism was
Essentialsalts please explain why slave morality has triumphed
By slave morality I assume he is referring to Christian or Judaic morality in which the slave class rose up against their masters and sought their vengeance by restraining their power. You can argue that liberalism is that same slave morality, making the weak and inferior equal to the superior and liberalism is dominant in the global “west”. Of course more than half of the world doesn’t share these liberal values. For example the Confucian tradition places the collective ahead of the individual, and has been shown (in my opinion) to be a more effective solution for social cohesion, however, personally, I do appreciate my individual freedoms. However, I lived and worked in China for some years in the 90s and didn’t encounter anything that I wanted to do that I was unable to do. I guess it would only become an issue if a tyrant took power.
While it is obvious that you have read friedrich nietzsche's work and understand his philosophy to a greater extent than any other youtuber I have come across, certainly more than that idiotic comedian who calls himself uberboyo, you fail to recognise the true extent in which Adolf Hitler and therefore the whole nationalsocialist movement was influenced by Herr Nietzsche.
For example at 1:09:39 you make the uneducated and naive statement that that national socialist germany "wanted to win the war to end all wars" . Where as in reality hitler made a statement contradicting your comment in which he said, roughly translated from german, "Germany must have a war every 15 to 20 years, soldiers who's job it is to purely maintain peace merely play at being soldiers".
This is just one example i thought was nessecary to highlight.
I suggest you learn german and read both Mein Kampf and Hitler's table talk by henry picker known as Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führer hauptquartier.
In addition to this i would also reread all of Friedrich nietzsche's work in german as the english translations you read by the jew walter kauffman are not to be trusted.
As we all know Arthur Schopenhauer said "jews are the great masters at lying" .
Hitler's friend as a young man, august kubizek, said Hitler carried books from Schopenhauer and later on Nietzsche with him.
Nietzche's sister gave hitler Nietzsches favourite walking stick with the remark" my brother would of liked you"
When we say Heil Hitler, we also mean Heil Nietzsche
Promises made made. Promises kept.
40:00
What do you make on Nietzche anger towards his fellow Germans. Was is it disappointment that they could waste their potential or was it sheer hatred? I've even read somewhere that one of his "Mad" letters stated that all of Europe should team up and destroy Germany while they still could and that he was having all Anti-Semites shot. If true this is clearly a Man who would have despise the Third Reich and probably sided with the Soviets out of pure anger. No wonder he was deeply troubled with his heritage that produces and was home to the worst type of Christianity, Protestantism.
Genomes are strong towards phenotype. Nazis gonna nazi
His last writings shouldn't be taken seriously.
@@aristocraticrebel Why not?
Because he was literally insane by then.@@elchasseur9927
I guess Germans were as stupid back than in Nietzsche's era as they are today. Always following the master blindly, always building humongous bureaucracies and being non-creative whatsoever.
So, no wonder Nietzsche was disgusted at his fellow countrymen when I see today's Germans being this dumb.
Nietzsche is bullish on Bitcoin, a maximalist with Lazer eyes 😂
The good stuff is in.
I think this is an oversimplification. You know who were hated before they were successful. The exclusion is what created the selective pressure for them to adapt in different ways. Your notion of success is also wrong. Nietzsche never had children, was very weak, had zero abilities with women. Biologically, he was a failure, just like most philosophers and intellectuals. Their whole existence is dependent on people they despise. Make an analysis of this if you are brave. Why does he tell himself that he's superior and deserves to leech off the masses with no evidence of it?
Imagine taking your definition of ''fascism'' from Umberto Eco xD
I know right. The most basic principle of intellectual honesty when dealing with an ideology is to go to the words/books and actions of the man or group who created it NOT what its enemies have to say about it.
Slave morality won
And Nietzsche greatly helped
How did he help?
@@PeakandAbyss
Because he sided with usurious jews over Europeans
@Joey Georgiou
I can't understand how everyone is obsessed with Hitler
When jews spawned Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. Che Guevara
All the leftist ideological poison injected, like a virus, into western politics
No jews
No communism, Zionism, no racial instigation, no hatred between men and women-feminism, sexual mutilation of children ( sexual reassignment surgery)
No Fascism or nazism, which were responses to judeo Marxism
@Joey Georgiou
Not to mention globalism which is another name for international banking system
Rothschilds and Rockefellers
Good video. I have a video titled 'My Nietzschean Liberalism'', in which I attempt to show how Nietzsche's philosophy can be combined with liberal political thought.
Problem is liberalism is an offshoot of Christian egalitarianism so contradicts Nietzschean philosophy.
17:44 like Trump for example
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles... That is the end of German Philosophy" - Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (1888)
"Make America Great Again" - Trump (2016)
Welp...
I am so happy my papa made me an iconoclast at a very young age.
Books!!!!
Fascism is alive and well in many European nations. It certainly is in Italy.
If we take the Nazis' Aryan ideology, seriously we can't really lump them into the same group as the Italian Fascists. The Aryan program is based on Race rather than Nation. Racial purity, superiority and world domination were central to the Nazis. Their Aryan ideology crossed national boundaries as a proto-race narrative. The Nazis grasped at anything that would support their racial ideology be it occultism, neo-paganism, linguistics or genetics. How far the Nazis would have taken their extermination of Non-Aryans and inferior types, so defined, is hard to say. Certainly Nietzsche never defended genocide. However, neither a proper mixing of the races nor his pan-Europeanism would not seem to be strong arguments to count him out as a similar type.
I agree, and wish I’d devoted more time to Mussolini than the last ten minutes at the end. But the most straightforward argument I could give to link the two is that Mussolinian fascism essentializes the state in the way the Nazi ideology essentializes the race. It attempts to make something which is dynamic and living into something eternal and static.
Regarding his pan-Europeanism and race mixing arguments: this is addressed in the episode. He was a eugenicist, but one who believed that combining races could be advantageous and generally saw race as a fluid thing: we emerged from nature and became what we are through struggle, rather than being descendants of once-pure races who have now degenerated. This means that race can’t be conceived of as “pure” by Nietzsche; and while his eugenics views are anathema to modern times, we have to acknowledge that its the polar opposite of the Nazi view of eugenics
They never said they wanted to exterminate other races. That’s just something that other people said about them. The axis powers were more racially diverse than the allies , Japan being a primary member
@@Panguman lmfao conspiracy theories 💀
@@elia8544 what..? that is a nothing response. Nothing I said was a conspiracy theory you numpty
@@untimelyreflections Actualism is Vitalistic, it’s in no way Platonic lol
Based essay.
I wouldn't take Nietzsche too seriously about biological evolution. Nobody, including Darwin, understood it very well at the time. For example there was no understanding of epigenetics, which. plays a huge role in skin color. The Űbermensch may be something, but it is unknown what. Maybe evolution will be cultural or transhuman. As for mixing ethnicities, hybrid vigor is a thing. Two lines may have different partial solutions to a problem, and mixing them can give both, which is usually better.
Hybrid vigor applied to human ethnicities is such goofy pseudoscience. Mixed raced people have higher incidences of mental illness and have trouble finding donors for certain medical treatments like bone marrow transplants.
Transhumanism is Conspiratorial Clique of Marxian Anthropologists like Yuval Noah Harari, A Pseudoscience.
--
What Nietzsche said about Racial Preservation in Anti Christ, same thing modern Genetic Engineer Razib Khan said without even being aware of Nietzsche. (Not a prophetic Prophecy like marx)… but the problem is people generally tend to take many things as cultural mere constructs, and jump into nature vs nurture debate.
The ubermensch never meant a physical evolution. It's cultural, philosophical, and likely political. An entirely new understanding of the world.
hybrid vigor is a meme that only happens in plants you absolute midwit. you want to see what race mixing does in humans? go and live in south america and let's see if you still think that the uruk-hai of that mordor-like sht-hole are the product of anything else than outbreeding depression. and no btw, if nietzsche had been born today he would be sufficiently educated in the studies of modern genetics and population differences to conclude that the data actually points that the mixing of races clearly creates the lastman
>skin color
You know less about genetics than Nietzsche to suggest such absurdities that the only determining factor of race is skin color
Guy just strawman's the antisemite position
Call me a meathead but I have always viewed Christianity as spiritual fascism and I have also used Neitsczche ideas to fortify my left hand spiritual philosophy. To me it clicks. Forgive me🙏🔥🤘
Christianity is a universal religion
All races are welcome and to misceginate
It's not fascism
@@fortunatomartino9797 yes you are correct sire. I forgot the Christianity loves to acquire as many submissive slaves as possible whilst destroying native religions and culture. Spiritual genocide I should have said instead rather. Either way Christianity is a vile cancer
@@fortunatomartino9797 the apocalyptic domination against the other or sinners or whatever in revelation absolutely does get used in a fascistic way. I can go into more detail if you can't see it.
@Noah
What's wrong with fascism?
Are you enjoying your sexually obsessed narcissistic, violent and degenerate culture ?
This is what Judeo Marxist gave us
@@fortunatomartino9797 Why does everyone think Fascism and National socialism is the same thing? You can have a Fascist state focused on Religious unity instead of 4chans' MUH RACE!