Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[Dubious]

So what makes Hitler wrong after Nietzsche? Let's ask that.

...because Hitler was dead wrong about Nietzsche to begin with as those who have read him or read about him, already know.

I've read Nietzsche.

Really! ...and you still can't figure it out. Is N that difficult for you?

I see Hitler all over him.

I can see where Hitler got some of his ideas compliments of Nietzsche's virulently anti-semitic sister who re-edited his works to conform to nazi propaganda and impress Hitler...a historical fact and where similarities end!

So do any but Nietzsche's late apologists, like yourself.

"Apologist" compared to what? The biblical kind that knows of no alternatives such as your eminent self? Nietzsche requires no defense when read correctly but he does require analysis if he's to be understood...which you have no time for; his style too complex for your limited understanding and preconceived prejudices!

So if Hitler is not an acceptable interpretation of Nietzschean ethics, prove it.

If there's one thing I despise beyond measure, regardless of subject, it's all the demented screwed-up fucking idiots who yell "prove it" when they themselves have absolutely no proof for anything they themselves proclaim!

Tell you what! Prove that Jesus was God and not some exceptional Rabbi preaching exclusively to the Jews! I challenge you to "prove it". If considered to be a stupid challenge, that's only because it is....though it wouldn't be when applied to anything you're in tune with! Isn't that right Immanuel?

Where is it said by Nietzsche that Hitler-type actions are wrong?

Based on chronology, which you also seem very confused about, how do you know he wouldn't have had he known of the "Hitler-type actions" not long in coming? There's more than enough indication of that in his writings already!

It's not remotely contestable that Hitler borrowed from Nietzsche, as he used all the same language exactly, and it's easy to establish that he not only knew of but greatly admired Nietzsche.

History overall and with much emphasis the Nazi period especially due to its lingering influence is under a deep state of scrutiny. Even Roosevelt and more so Churchill are being suborned to a much lower rank than they used to be on not very long ago. History is being re-analyzed and revised and myths disspelled including this one...sorry for the long quote:

Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy

If Hitler followed Nietzschian philosophy or even admired his work, then where does he describe him or his philosophy?

Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchian terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan's represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchian terms.

Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of "superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner (beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism (and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the 1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt, influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's "superior" race ideas sound like a combination of Biblical race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but not at all like Nietzsche.

Nor does it make sense that the Christian Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists. For example:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German propaganda article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Unfortunately many Germans fell for the Nietzsche-Nazi connection including many members of the Thule society.

The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.

Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.

Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhauer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy.

As a biblically manufactured pseudo-intellect, it goes without saying all this means nothing to you!

[Skip]

Here I am. Oh, - are you talking about IC or N? I thought I was deplorable, not reprehensible.

And have you interpreted any of Immanuel Can's copious product in some sort of way that he might not have predicted?
I have no idea whether you are deplorable, reprehensibe, virtuous or risible; I don't know what you are at all.
And I'm quite sure there were several people who were not in any way Hitleresque who also admired Nietzsche.
Which is probably why Nietzsche didn't think to spell out all the possible ways in which his morality could not legitimately be expressed.

[thedoc]

Here I am. Oh, - are you talking about IC or N? I thought I was deplorable, not reprehensible.

And have you interpreted any of Immanuel Can's copious product in some sort of way that he might not have predicted?
I have no idea whether you are deplorable, reprehensibe, virtuous or risible; I don't know what you are at all.
And I'm quite sure there were several people who were not in any way Hitleresque who also admired Nietzsche.
Which is probably why Nietzsche didn't think to spell out all the possible ways in which his morality could not legitimately be expressed.

I think I got to his "God is dead" quote, and stopped reading. That sort of put me off of Nietzsche.

I also tried to read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and decided that Zarathustra was a narcissistic twit, and stopped reading after about 15 pages.

[Immanuel Can]

I wrote:

So if Hitler is not an acceptable interpretation of Nietzschean ethics, prove it.

Your response was:

If there's one thing I despise beyond measure, regardless of subject, it's all the demented screwed-up fucking idiots who yell "prove it" when they themselves have absolutely no proof for anything they themselves proclaim...!

Exactly what I would expect. Non-reponsive, ad hominem attack. When one cannot meet the challenge, all one can do is dangle shiny objects and hope people don't notice the distraction. But the metamessage is clear: there is no way to clear Nietzsche of allowing Hitler, and of supplying him with the sorts of concepts he needed to justify his actions. If there were, you would have offered it.

The simple fact is that NOTHING in Nietzsche rules out the statement that Hitler is a perfectly allowable interpretation of his ethics. It is as I said: he cleared the way for Hitler to do what he did, and deprived ethics of the terms to resist totalitarianism of this kind.

Or...quote Nietzsche, not his apologists. Go ahead.

[Dubious]

Exactly what I would expect. Non-reponsive, ad hominem attack.

I know of no instance where a simple truth can be qualified as ad hominem. Facts are facts however unfavorable.

No one I know has ever been as cooperative in proving himself to be so immune to modern scholarship and its fundamental revisions or of anyone so unconditionally paralyzed by prejudice such as yourself.

Also, as expected, no response to the Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy quote!
No surprise, since there's no defense against fact...however you may try. The easiest default position in your case has always been to claim insult when there's no other way out.

[Greta]

From a day ago:

Then again, Charles Manson completely misunderstood The Beatles's Blackbird, but his inspiration from that song had nothing to do with Paul McCartney's ideas. So the co-opting of another's work need not reflect on the other at all.

That's quite true. The fact that someone steals language from an ideology does not mean they are true representatives of that ideology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the metamessage is clear: there is no way to clear Nietzsche of allowing Hitler, and of supplying him with the sorts of concepts he needed to justify his actions.

You have contradicted yourself here. If we judge Nietzsche for inspiring Hitler then we must judge Paul McCartney for inspiring Charles Manson - each is thoroughly illogical.

BTW, while Nietzsche made some great observations I'm not a fan at all of his patriarchal ideas. I'm actually not impressed with many of the old philosophers because societal learning has moved on so quickly that they often did not have the information at their disposal to make informed opinions about the nature of reality.

As for Bill O'Reilly, as a neocon polemicist falls, others will take his place to keep the proles quiet, so they don't comprehend just how betrayed they are by their elected representatives who are entirely beholden to institutions.

Individuals at societal level are just numbers. Write to your MP about an issue and it will result in a "1" being added to a column in a parliamentarian's aide's database. Meanwhile, if a powerful developer or multinational demands a meeting, there will be instant response from the politician personally, a lovely spread of food and drink provided (paid for by taxpayers) in salubrious surrounds as they discuss how far the government needs to bend over (with taxpayer money) to accommodate the lobbyist's economic phallus.

Spruikers like Bill O'Reilly are essentially hired by institutions to keep the taxpaying plebs behaving conveniently. Deception is one of the great strategies of primates and other intelligent species. Just one deceiver has left the building so I see little cause for schadenfreude or celebration.

[Dubious]

It is as I said: he cleared the way for Hitler to do what he did, and deprived ethics of the terms to resist totalitarianism of this kind.

...since you insist it must be so!

[Dubious]

I think I got to his "God is dead" quote, and stopped reading. That sort of put me off of Nietzsche.

Being a theist that hardly surprises even though god is nearly dead within the minds of most Westerners...enough to say that churches in truth have become "the sepulchers of god" serving ritual more than deity; tradition more than revelation.

I also tried to read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and decided that Zarathustra was a narcissistic twit, and stopped reading after about 15 pages.

If "Zarathustra was a narcissistic twit", then IC and Zarathustra have a lot in common. Regardless, I commend you on your intellectual ability to have managed a whole 15 pages!

[Skip]

I think I got to his "God is dead" quote, and stopped reading. That sort of put me off of Nietzsche.

I also tried to read "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and decided that Zarathustra was a narcissistic twit, and stopped reading after about 15 pages.

If only you could have done the same for Immanuel Can, this exchange would have taken place.

[thedoc]

And have you interpreted any of Immanuel Can's copious product in some sort of way that he might not have predicted?
I have no idea whether you are risible; I don't know what you are at all.

I've been that on occasion.

I'm sure I must have interpreted IC posts in ways he didn't expect.

[Skip]

I'm sure I must have interpreted IC posts in ways he didn't expect.

In that case, would it be reasonable to find among his writings any specific repudiations of your interpretation?

[Immanuel Can]

But the metamessage is clear: there is no way to clear Nietzsche of allowing Hitler, and of supplying him with the sorts of concepts he needed to justify his actions.

You have contradicted yourself here. If we judge Nietzsche for inspiring Hitler then we must judge Paul McCartney for inspiring Charles Manson - each is thoroughly illogical.

Incorrect. We can judge Paul McCartney as a guilty contributor to Manson's actions if "Helter Skelter" were a conversion narrative that explicitly advocates or prepares excuses for mass murder. It doesn't, so we can't.

Not so with Nietzsche. He explicitly aims at converting people to his beliefs. Indeed, he offers himself as "so wise" we should all listen to him. His critique is targeted directly and explicitly at putting us "beyond good and evil," in advocating the triumph of the superior men and superior races, in pursuing "the will to power" without regard for "Judeo-Christian morality," and so on. Not to see this as at least explicitly preparatory, if not directly contributory to Hitler takes and extraordinary feat of blindness on the part of his later apologists.

BTW, while Nietzsche made some great observations I'm not a fan at all of his patriarchal ideas.

I'd agree on both points. You'll recall his famous comment about "taking the whip" to women...

[Immanuel Can]

Also, as expected...

Quote Nietzsche.

For I asked first. Afterward, I'll happily address your claim.

Moreover, if you can do it, then we'll have already proved you correct; for it's certainly got to be the case that if Nietzsche rules out Hitler-type interpretations, then any accusation to the contrary would be a "myth." I'll happily give you that up front.

So you should be able to win your point easily, if you can quote Nietzsche for the relevant evidence; and if you can't, then no commenter on him is right either -- then it would be clear that you would have shown that THEY are perpetuating myths, not I.

So go ahead. Prove you're right. Give the quotation.

[Immanuel Can]

...since you insist it must be so!

The opposite. It is so, so I insist upon it.

[Arising_uk]

... in advocating the triumph of the ... superior races, ...

Despite what IC has said he has clearly not read Nietzsche if he thinks this.

I wonder what his 'God' thinks about lying?