Why have Liberals co-opted Nietzsche? (And what is their REAL intent?)

[Anonymous No.10233046]

Liberals have co-opted Nietzsche in the past few decades into pushing their "he wasn't really an anti-semite!!" message whilst simultaneously dismissing anyone who likes Nietzsche as a "nihilist" or "entry-level".

I am thoroughly convinced that this is orchestrated or done on purpose as some kind of erosion of Nietzsche for his influence on Fascism and the Nazis.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I believe this is too suspicious to be a natural occurrence. For one, why are their views on Nietzsche so often contradictory and never actually based on the source material? It's almost as if they know he wouldn't approve of them. Nonetheless, I find this all highly strange. I have personally witnessed this attitude in Academia by professors who were quite sincerely Marxists. They would repeat the typical normalfag interpretations, "hammer and nail", "god is dead" but when it came to anything that could even be interpreted as illiberal in nature, it would be ignored.

Now, allow me to be clear, I'm not a Fascist or Nazi myself but I can see a scam when I'm confronted by one. What do you think about this?

[Anonymous No.10233054]

I think you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.10233056]

>>10233046
you're operating by the american definition of "liberal" which is a clear sign your brain is broken. better luck next life.

[Anonymous No.10233062]

>>10233046
Nietzsche created a system where it's literally impossible to be wrong

That's why he's so popular with any far-X ideology

[Anonymous No.10233071]

I think this is only really the case in the Anglosphere.
People like Kaufman tried to "rehabilitate" his name because Nietzsche had been invoked by the Nazis to a fair degree, to make him fit for publication
but the analytic community which dominated American and English thought wasn't receptive to his views just based on how they viewed the task of
philosophy.

People who could be described as Liberals, just in virtue of them being Anglo-American, did try to integrate him into their system to some degree, but
the results I would argue were largely contingent and was just what followed when he was introduced into an already ossified philosophical tradition.

[Anonymous No.10233073]

>>10233056
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10233078]

>>10233073
>Molyneux meme
>frog
>'liberal'

Just end yourself. 4chan has made you brain-dead.

[Anonymous No.10233079]

They turned the Neet into an “apolitical” individualist just so they could study him without being called fascists. They’ll usually grudgingly admit he was somewhat illiberal if you push them, even if they won’t admit that actually preferred some forms of society to others.

[Anonymous No.10233082]

>>10233073
let's hope it's not an argument, you can't afford to have many more of those with your karma

[Anonymous No.10233086]

Why are there like 20 NEETzsche threads a day

Holy fuck this place is becoming worse than reddit

[Anonymous No.10233112]

>>10233086
Because he coo

[Anonymous No.10233123]

[Anonymous No.10233124]

>>10233078
Your post is based on a strawman and semantics. You're a brainlet.

>>10233082
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10233129]

>>10233124
are you trying to be offensive because you are afraid? compassion is nothing to be afraid of anon, it is the beginning and end of all suffering. namaste anonkun

[Anonymous No.10233133]

>>10233123
Is this legit?

[Anonymous No.10233140]

>>10233133
I think so

I've looked into some other things Tolstoy wrote about Nietzsche and to say he hated the guy would be an understatement

[Anonymous No.10233151]

>>10233133
>>10233140
I looked into it, it's a paraphrase from "written by a limited and abnormal German"

[Anonymous No.10233162]

>>10233046
You are on the right path here. Nietzsche can be interpreted in various ways, and he may have done this intentionally to gain more influence, but his best stuff is on the jewish problem. The jewish left appropriated him mainly for the "god is dead" moniker when they were trying to make Christianity look stupid to 68ers, but for other reasons as well.

Anyone who wants a good rundown on the JQ, but isn't too retarded assuming they want to understand it, should read the first 30 or so pages of Genealogy. What whites are talking about wrt the jewish problem is their ethnic strategy, which Nietzsche and many others throughout history have documented.

[Anonymous No.10233163]

>>10233123
>>10233133
>>10233140
>>10233151
Tolstoy was a cuckold that sincerely advocated non-resistance to violence, the biggest cuck ideology on the planet.

[Anonymous No.10233198]

The Nietzscheanization of the Left or Vice Versa

Marx no longer resonates with students
Nihilism does

[Anonymous No.10233199]

Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them.
I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret.
And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow.
Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing.
It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost.

[Anonymous No.10233211]

>>10233133
nah neetchee was polish. he hated being called a german

[Anonymous No.10233495]

so that he can be studied in university. I doubt Spengler is taught anymore. You have to come to this shit hole to even find out who Spengler was

[Anonymous No.10233560]

>>10233163
Great writers are exempt from being cuckolds, even if they are

[Anonymous No.10233841]

>>10233046
>What do you think about this?
Beating a dead horse with a stick is what I think about it. Kaufman already sorted out the anti-Semitic shit from his work, and we know he despised Wagner and the Germans later in his life, and wrote a letter to his sister more or less ex-communicating her because of her affiliation with an anti-Semite speaker who was growing in popularity at the time.

Now, liberals appropriating Nietzsche is obviously bullshit. The man appeals to a hierarchical point of view constantly, advocates for radical individualism, warrior morality, a traditional view of the sexes, etc. He is more of a Greek than a German and the Greeks were not fucking democratic at all. Their "democracy" was the wealthiest men being able to vote on equal terms among themselves and no one else.

On the other hand, the Germans are morons for various reasons. Loud-mouthed, uncouth, filling their stomachs with barely digestible heavy meats day in and day out, prone to bastardize things, etc. Some elements of the Nazis Nietzsche would have admired, obviously, but not their entire shtick. Doubtful the socialism, for one.

[Anonymous No.10233855]

>>10233056
good post

[Anonymous No.10234106]

>>10233054
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.10234119]

>>10233046
It's always the same leftist stunt.

Trump wins - It can't be! People would never choose him and would rather be run by kikes! It must be because of Russia.

lmao, so delusional.

also, it is pretty obvious Nietzsche was anti-semitic and predicted the "corruption of the european race" (from him)

[Anonymous No.10234138]

>>10233560
Joyce looks like my retarded cousin. It's the kind of guy you would find standing mindless in his room, covered with shit. Shit everywhere, shit on his dick, on the walls, in his eyes, in his soul. And this retarded goof with the stare of an elderly orangutan had the guts to write fanfics about fucking girls, with handjobs, cumming, pussy queefs and everything. Look at his fucking expression. A slobbering mongrel.

[Anonymous No.10235201]

>>10233133
I don't know but it wouldn't be surprising
He also hated Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.10235544]

>>10233071
>I think this is only really the case in the Anglosphere.

Are you retarded? There's like a million French continental commies who claim to be influenced by Nietzsche, but they all pretend that he wrote like two sentences on epistemology, and even then they don't actually understand him.

[Anonymous No.10235598]

>>10235544
this
commies like deleuze and foucault only pick the parts theat suited their socialist views disregarding all other concepts that were against their belief

[Anonymous No.10235610]

>>10233124
Slit your wrists.

[Anonymous No.10235627]

Nietzche's thought is apolitical ffs, he hated left and right equally

[Anonymous No.10235740]

>>10233046
Nietzsche wasn't an anti-Semite. Although the watered down, "self help book the philosopher" version of Nietzsche liberals and leftists often present him as does him a disservice, the Nietzsche of the Nazis is inaccurate as well.

Nietzsche's stances are unlike most other thinkers' so a lot of people miss the nuance in his work. He was opposed to anti-Semitism and praised the Jews for their resilience but also considered them the ultimate slave moralists. He was opposed to German nationalism but he opposed it because of its populist character and association with anti-Semitism. Nietzsche offered a tremendous amount of praise to the ancient Germanic tribes and both Frederick IIs. He dreamed of a united Europe ruled by a warrior poets. He loathed Christianity but not because the reasons liberals do. He hated it because it encouraged weakness, turned away from life, and leveled the human race through the eyes of God. Nietzsche was against liberalism, socialism (especially anarchism), the proto-Nazis of his day, and the old aristocracies that had grown decadent. I'm reluctant to assign him any political label but if I had to, I'd probably describe him as something like an aristocratic individualist.

[Anonymous No.10235770]

>>10235740
>I'd probably describe him as something like an aristocratic individualist.
What are some other thinkers who fit this label.
I moved on to Ernst Junger. Who else?

[Anonymous No.10235781]

>>10235627
>>10235627
>>10235627
He hated both conservatism and leftism, but it's wrong to call him apolitical. Clearly he had things to say about politics, if you read Beyond Good and Evil...

Even Leo Strauss notes there are definitely fascistic qualities in Nietzsche, and we must admit this even if it makes some of us squirm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkFqkUmK32U

[Anonymous No.10235820]

>>10235781
I think you make the mistake of seeing only left and right. And what makes a quality fascistic?

I've read books like Our Political Nature, Predisposed and the Righteous Mind, which argue that certain personality tends to cluster with either the left or right. Other biological traits do the same. And they argue that it is largely heriditable - not fully. I mention this because it shows the left/right stuff is more than a social construction alone.

But otherwise what is right and left is a pure social construction. From the above books it should follow that certain ideas should more easily cluster around the right or left, but that's it: the rest is socially constructed and changes in time. Another book The Political Mind - I think it was - mentioned that self-interest and group dynamics play another role - and I think they are right.

I think Nietzsche's ideas are applicable to both the left and right. And I ask you what you think are fascistic qualities because I think that this is largely subjective.

[Anonymous No.10235864]

>>10235820
It is convenient for anglo-psychology to take this position that it is materialistic conditions which determine our beliefs. But certain things cannot be constructed, like hierarchy or lack of hierarchy. That is reflected in society directly, with the right supporting the first and the left supporting the second.

Nietzsche was the supreme champion of aristocracy, violence, war, oppression, and the "breeding" of man; he spoke of a new European race, that would pass under the sign of Hercules, and make Europe more virile, more unified, more inhuman and superhuman. He, however, opposed nationalism and the resentiment qualities in antisemitic movements of his day, which make him hard to label right wing, or even strictly "fascist" in a historical sense. But the idea that fascism is anti-reactionary as well as anti-left, anti-egalitarian, with a vision for the Future (the ideology of futurism) and masculinity, with the promotion of Caesars who would rule the ever-disintegrating masses of modernity -- all of this is contained in the symbolism of fascism, and is unmistakably similar.

Now, people always raise up objections to that, like that Nietzsche cared about the Individual, about creativity, about overcoming the herd. But did he think this for all man, or just the best?

[Anonymous No.10236038]

>>10235864
Good post.

>But did he think this for all man, or just the best?

You just nailed what I think a lot of people seem to overlook about Nietzsche's character, as if they can't fathom how it could be the latter.

[Anonymous No.10236052]

>>10234138
>shit everywhere, shit on his dick, on the walls, in his eyes, in his soul.
and then he'd yell: bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

[Anonymous No.10236058]

>>10235598
You're a fucking idiot. Foucault read Nietzsche and had a revelation that there was a history of ideas you need to dig up. Part of the dialectic is that you take what is true from a philosophy or argument, then try to "preserve" it by taking it to the next level. Idiot. Swine. Read more.

[Anonymous No.10237352]

Most people a) haven't read Nietzsche at all, b) haven't come back to revisit his thinking, or c) haven't come back to revisit his thinking a third time.

[Anonymous No.10237363]

>>10233046
Are you claiming that Nietzsche *was* an anti-semite? If so, can you back this claim up with some evidence? Cause I've seen no reason to think that he was.

[Anonymous No.10237393]

>>10233046
Liberals don't read him closely enough.

Beyond Good and Evil:

>You utterly fail to understand beasts of prey and men of prey (like Cesare Borgia), you fail to understand “nature” if you are still looking for a “disease” at the heart of these healthiest of all tropical monsters and growths, or particularly if you are looking for some innate “hell” in them –: as almost all moralists so far have done. Does it seem that moralists harbor a hatred against tropics and primeval forests? And that they need to discredit the “tropical man” at all cost, whether as a disease or degeneration of man, or as his own hell and self-martyrdom? But why? In favor of “temperate zones?” In favor of temperate men? Of “moralists”? Of the mediocre? – This for the chapter: “Morality as Timidity.” –

[Anonymous No.10237964]

>>10236038
They take his flattering comments about the higher man and assert it into their already conceived idea of mass individualism, i.e. liberalism. As soon as they do this however, they have rendered Nietzsche completely useless and boring.

[Anonymous No.10237976]

>>10237363
Jewish scholar Robert C. Holub has an interesting and honest take on this question. He proposes that while Nietzsche disliked anti-semites, he did not then support Judaism as a force in this world.

>The increasingly popular view today is that Nietzsche was not only completely free of racist tendencies but also was a principled adversary of anti-Jewish thought. Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem offers a definitive reappraisal of the controversy, taking the full historical, intellectual, and biographical context into account. As Robert Holub shows, a careful consideration of all the evidence from Nietzsche’s published and unpublished writings and letters reveals that he harbored anti-Jewish prejudices throughout his life.

>Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem demonstrates how this is so despite the apparent paradox of the philosopher’s well-documented opposition to the crude political anti-Semitism of the Germany of his day. As Holub explains, Nietzsche’s "anti-anti-Semitism" was motivated more by distaste for vulgar nationalism than by any objection to anti-Jewish prejudice.

>A richly detailed account of a controversy that goes to the heart of Nietzsche’s reputation and reception, Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem will fascinate anyone interested in philosophy, intellectual history, or the history of anti-Semitism.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10635.html

[Anonymous No.10238767]

I've been curious about Nietzsche for a while, which book is the best one to start with?

[I like Albert Camus and E.M Cioran if that helps.

[Anonymous No.10238777]

You're right OP

There's only one real heir to Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10238866]

>>10235598
>Foucault
>liberal

[Anonymous No.10238937]

>>10233046
Leftists have only the destruction of society as their goal, which is why the biggest opponent to nihilism must be made, himself, a nihilist.
>My conception of freedom. — The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it — what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization.
>>10233056
>butthurt redditor leftist confirmed for having never read Nietzche

[Anonymous No.10238940]

>>10238767
The Greeks

[Anonymous No.10238963]

>>10235864
>>10236038
The best. Nietzche said repeatedly his books weren't for everybody, or just anybody, but only those who were truly made for it. He didn't anticipate all of society becoming higher humans, but only that they each have their respective roles to play. That the herd should not govern what is best for the higher man, the very thing that leftists attempt to do today - that is one fundamental fault with leftists adapting Nietzche, among many.

[Anonymous No.10238966]

>>10233199
what is this?

[Anonymous No.10239089]

>>10238963
liberals aren't leftists, idiot

[Anonymous No.10239110]

>>10239089
Imagine being so mentally retarded that you enter a thread about Nietzche, where a quote by Nietzche is posted that states that liberals cease to be liberals once they get power, and then getting mad when somebody uses the term 'leftist' as an alternative to liberal - trying to be a haughty faggot leftist pseud retard as an argument but failing.

[Anonymous No.10239156]

>>10239110
t. aut right

[Anonymous No.10239172]

>>10239156

[Anonymous No.10239198]

>>10233046
They can sense that he was on to something so they cherry pick and convince themselves that he would be on their side.

[Anonymous No.10239206]

>>10239172
>yfw

captcha: ORIENTAL PRESIDENTE must be talking about xi jinping lol

[Anonymous No.10239229]

>>10233046
You mean "Liberals".

It's impossible to reach any egalitarian conclusion with Nietzsche, so he is essentially not a liberal thinker at all let alone a leftist thinker.

The only thing that people still take seriously from Nietzsche is his critique of language, which saw a huge following through Heidegger and Derrida, but also Foucault.

[Anonymous No.10239245]

>>10239229
>people
Which people?

[Anonymous No.10239254]

>>10239245
Academia obviously. Which are mostly the only people who actively study a philosopher and get paid for doing so.

[Anonymous No.10239270]

>>10239254
>Academia
That's an institution, I want names.
>Getting paid to study philosophy
>Being a philosopher
Pick one

[Anonymous No.10239348]

>>10235864
Let's forget about the anglo-psych I namedropped. I did it with good intentions though. At /his/ there's an attitude of skepticism towards left and right as concepts, and I tried to replicate that.
>He, however, opposed nationalism and the resentiment qualities in antisemitic movements of his day, which make him hard to label right wing
I don't think those are necessaries for the right.
>or even strictly "fascist" in a historical sense.
Good you specify you are using the historical definition.

Of some points I think it is hard to deny that it was Nietzsche's point of view. The promotion of Ceasars, his anti-egalitarianism, maybe a bunch more. Other points I'm not certain if they can be attributed to Nietzsche or whatever it is your interpretation and you are putting words into Friederich's mouth.

Nietzsche is popular because he can be interpreted in different ways. I would agree that there's limits to that even.

And you have to consider the man in historical perspective too. Certain ideas are not so much Nietzsche as the past zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.10239354]

>>10239270

He never said that studying philosophy makes one a philosopher you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.10239371]

>>10239270
Well I gave you names. People like Derrida, Foucault and Heidegger all were influenced by Nietzsche, but they were influenced mostly by his hermeneutics(e.g the essay On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense), and less about his other philosophical musings.

The only one of those three that were interested in Nietzsche beyond his language critique was Foucault, who tried to develop his concept of will to power into a sociological phenomenon(E.g the concepts of power-knowledge, and governmentality).

Whether or not he did his predecessor justice is up for interpretation though.

[Anonymous No.10239376]

>>10239371
Foucault is the only relevant person on that list sooo

[Anonymous No.10239377]

>>10239354
Who cares what anyone but a philosopher would say about Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.10239390]

>>10233046
>whilst simultaneously dismissing anyone who likes Nietzsche as a "nihilist" or "entry-level".

Have you actually read a single page of Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.10239393]

>>10239371
>The only one of those three that were interested in Nietzsche beyond his language critique was Foucault
T. Hasn't read Heidegger's lectures on neetchan

[Anonymous No.10239411]

>>10239371
>'academia'
>names 3 prominent figures that everyone knows
>doesn't offer textual examples to support his case
Why do I get the impression that you're not only stupid but also French?

[Anonymous No.10239418]

>>10239393
I haven't actually, but from my studies of Being and Time there doesn't seem to be a lot of Nietzschean influence.

As far as I know he was critical of Nietzsche's conceptualization of Becoming, just as he was critical of Heraclitus' idea of the same thing.

[Anonymous No.10239429]

>>10239418
Oh my gooooddddddd

[Anonymous No.10239451]

>>10239393
Not that guy, but even so, Heidegger utterly failed to grasp Nietzsche. To call Nietzsche's work a metaphysics and to butcher aspects of him into a Frankenstein's monster level of his own metaphysics exposes this about him.

[Anonymous No.10239494]

>>10233056
Even dostoevsky noted that Russian liberalism wasn't Russian liberalism. This is the same case. He is referring the to the rich liberals that are promoting soft socialism.
>>10233046
I go to a very sjw type school. The amount of people who are fascinated by Nietzsche but yet try and ignore the conflicts between his and their ideologies is kinda scary. The disconnect is real.

[Anonymous No.10239560]

>>10239418
He did those lectures after he wrote bean and time and after his kehre

>>10239451
I fuck your mom

[Anonymous No.10239886]

>Decadence itself is nothing to be fought: it is absolutely necessary and belongs to every age and every people. What should be fought vigorously is the contagion of the healthy parts of the organism. Is this being done? The opposite is done. Precisely that is attempted in the name of humanity. How are the supreme values held so far, related to this basic biological question? Philosophy, religion, morality, art, etc. (The cure: e. g., militarism, beginning with Napoleon who considered civilization his natural enemy.)