Nietzsche's "Antichrist"

[Joe_Keysor]

Hello Admiral Crunch. Been promoted?

The problem wasn’t finding the best way to exterminate the Jews. I hate to defend the Nazis in any way, but the concept of mass extermination wasn’t even on the table until 1941 and wasn’t official policy until the Wannsee conference in early 1942.

Exactly how long Hitler had the idea in his mind before it became official policy is a different question from the extent to which his ideas are similar to Nietzche’s or derived from Nietzsche.
I don’t think Hitler decided in 1941, “Let’s kill the Jews.”

You make a completely unsupported jump from your interpretation of Nietzsche’s characterization of the Jews to his supposed advocacy of the Holocaust.

I don’t think I specifically said Nietzsche advocated a Holocaust. Much of the philosophical basis for Hitler’s antisemitism (not all of it) derives from Nietzsche, that is my point.

I said “That was not the position of German Social Darwinists, who felt that it was the duty of the state to assist and support the natural order of things” and was told “Don’t confuse Germans and Nazis.” I referred to German social Darwinists. Not all Germans were social Darwinists. And, we all know not all Germans were Nazis. Hitler never received a majority vote.

My interpretation of Nietzsche’s seemingly anti-Semitic comments has been that he was looking for a solution to the problem of nihilism. Once he grasped one, he reformed his thinking around the goal of the overman and the will to power accordingly. Christians, Jews, Germans, and Women were all seen as barriers in some way to his goal. It’s a rather immature characterization, but traditional morality isn’t applicable in his thought.

Seemingly antisemitic? Did you say seemingly? Have you read “The Antichrist?” I believe he was motivated by supreme egotism and hatred of God (possibly because of his childhood).

[Joe_Keysor]

I said that Wikepedia’s characterization of Nietzsche was inaccurate, and did not receive a substantive correction, but was told “Conspiracies are everywhere.” Misinterpreting Nietzsche or an inaccurate encyclopedia entry is not a sign of a conspiracy. How about a more substantive response. Have you read the Antichrist?

I said “The ‘introduction’ also did not refer to Nietzsche’s ridicule and scorn heaped on the Old Testament which (apart from the wars and conquests) he considered to be a gigantic fraud.” Can you show me where the introduction did mention that? Can you show from the Antichrist that Nietzsche did not dismiss almost all of the Old Testament as lies? If you can do one of those, you have refuted me. I am confident you cannot, and do not expect you to show me where I am wrong here.

Then there are some quotes from “Beyond Good and Evil” showing Nietzsche’s high opinion of Jews. First, Nietzsche did change his mind. For example, he praised Wagner, then rejected him scornfully and bitterly. Second, Nietzsche did like the Jews of the period of the kings and the conquest, with their battles, wars, and massacres. He said they were “healthy” then but later, when their concept of God failed them, they invented a new and false system. Thirdly, what about the many things that he did say in the Antichrist? You are just ignoring, it seems to me, the basic question.

Here is another quote from Nietzsche:

That the Jews, if they wanted to—or if people were to force them, as the anti-Semites seem to wish to do—could even now become predominant, in fact, quite literally gain mastery over Europe, is certain; that they are not working and planning for that is equally certain. Meanwhile they desire and wish for something different—to some extent in Europe they are insisting on being absorbed into and assimilated by Europe. They thirst to be finally established somewhere or other, allowed to be respected and to bring to an end their nomadic life, to the “Wandering Jew.” And people should pay full attention to this tendency and impulse (which in itself perhaps even expresses a moderating of Jewish instincts) and accommodate it. And for this, it might perhaps be useful and reasonable to expel the anti-Semitic ranters out of the country.

Commenting on this, Admiral Crunch says:

Hear that message: accomodate the Jews, kick out anti-semitic rubble? Must be some secret code for top-notch anti-semitism, none of that vulgar Wagnerian type.

It is certain to Nietzsche that the Jews could quite literally gain mastery over Europe!!! One, this demonstrates that Nietzsche truly was an idiot. Two, it is a very small step to go from “The Jews certainly could gain the mastery over Europe but are not trying to” to “They are trying to.” Nietzsche’s troubled mind was thoroughly capable of making this transition. Anyway, have you read the Antichrist? Please let me know if you have or have not. If you have, where is my characterization of it wrong? If you have not, you will excuse me for not taking your comments on this subject too seriously.

As to the top-notch antisemitism, not the vulgar Wagnerian type, Nietzsche did believe that much of what passed for antisemitism was itself infected with Jewish values. He thought that any concept of a spiritual dimension or force whatsoever, even in philosophers such as Kant, was Jewish infection. He felt that other forms were shallow and inconsistent, and did not get to the root of the problem, unlike his own more thorough and radical analysis in the Antichrist.

[Joe_Keysor]

Liberal says:
While I’m delighted that we have a point of agreement, I should point out to you, given your newness and in the interest of full disclosure, that I am a liberal of the old school or, if you prefer, a European or classical liberal. I advocate the repeal of all laws of prohibition, including those against drugs, prostitution, immorality, and gambling. I do not believe that judgment of morality is within the jurisdiction of man. There is likely far more that we disagree on than that we agree on. I am also a Christian and an Objectivist.

I will check out the link. Did European liberals of the 19th century advocate the repeal of all laws of prohibition? I don’t think so. That sounds very modern to me, but I will check out the link. Having glanced at it briefly, it doesn’t seem to have much of a moral or philosophical base so far.

As to moral judgements not being within the jurisdiction of man, they are within the jurisdiction of God, and he has given us a moral code that is clear in the basic outlines, if not in every single detail. Perhaps sometime we can have a discussion on that, and also on what our ideas of Christianity are.

If you believe moral judgements are not within our judgement, how can you say what is the best form of society, and what is the best form of government or system of laws? What if your concepts would take a bad situation and make it even worse? Being a conservative of the old school, I think some form of moral restraint is necessary. Of course, there will be abuses, no question, but that is better than a tidal wave of anarchy.

[Joe_Keysor]

About the evil results of Darwinism, here is an interesting site:http://www.fixedearth.com/hlsm.html

JOSEPH V. STALIN: (b. IOSIF VISSARIONOVICH DZHUGASHVILI, b.1879; d. 1953; Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments.  He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.”

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s relates:  “I began to speak of God.  Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....’”                

Gludjidze reported: “I was astonished at these words.  I had never heard anything like it before.  How can you say such things, Soso?” he asked Stalin, who replied:

“I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.”

“What book is that?” his friend inquired.

“Darwin.  You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”  

A few pages later, another person who was in school with Stalin, said of what they were taught:

“...in order to disabuse [i.e., free from deception or error] the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings.”

A quick note on how Mao Tse-tung made indoctrination into evolutionism his very first priority after the Communist victory in China in late 1949 is of interest…

MAO TSE TUNG: (b. 1893; d. 1976) In a graduate school paper about the way the communists dealt with the 85% illiteracy problem in China, I found two things that stuck with me:

1. Mao’s method was quite resourceful given what he had to work with. He called it “Each One Teach One”. It was basically the idea that every literate person would teach an illiterate person and, as soon as the pupil learned enough to read and write he would then teach what he had learned to another illiterate person. Within a few short years the 85% figure was totally reversed… It was quite an accomplishment given all the obstacles.

2. Being a Marxist and an atheist and a firm believer in evolutionism himself, Mao mandated that the reading material used in this early day “Great Leap Forward” in literacy would be the writings of Charles Darwin and other materials supportive of the evolution paradigm. Understanding modern China of necessity includes an understanding of the transference of this state mandated indoctrination into evolution-based atheism from one generation to another for more than a half century. The fact that Mao’s regime was responsible for the out-and-out murder of somewhere between 30 and 60 million people…many of them Christian missionaries and their flocks…does not suggest that all evolutionists are potential mass murderers, of course. However, it does strongly suggest that a passionate belief that man is just another evolved animal is a conviction that is fully capable of creating a mind-set which cheapens life and excuses whatever behavior and policies individuals may pursue, no matter how hurtful and even deadly that behavior and those policies may be to millions of other people. Indeed, one abiding result of this passionate belief in the evolutionary origins scenario–a result more evident in the lives of the Lenin, Stalin, and Mao than in Hitler–is an utter disdain–often escalating to outright hatred–of Christians in particular.

[New_Iskander]

I’ve never prayed in my life, but…

God help us all!

[Taber]

@Joe Keysor

Can someone authenticate for me whether or not Darwin believed that blacks were closer to gorillas on the evolutionary scale than to whites?

Darwin was actually very egalitarian for his time, being very opposed to slavery and so forth http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_himself_was_racist

As the cite mentions, even if Darwin was a racist, it would not invalidate his theory. But Darwin wasn’t racist, he actaually had a relitively modern view of the races

@Darwin's Descent of man

“But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.”

@Joe Keysor

Anyway, I believe some (not all) key elements of National Socialism derive logically and inevitably from Darwinism.

My position is that on the day of judgement Darwin will be held accountable by God for his own life, what he said and what he did. I think you meant to ask “Do you deny that Darwin’s findings are valid?” Yes, I deny that they are valid. I agree that they are not valid. I think Darwinism is a false and unscientific theory. Also, I believe it is an evil theory that destroys morality and ethics and reduces man to the level of a beast. It is no coincidence that the four greatest mass murderers of the modern era - Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao - all believed in evolution.

It’s also no coincidence that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao believed the earth was round.

@Joe Keysor

There is no God, there are no ethics other than survival, man is only an animal - the results are evident.

I would like to point out that evolutionary theory says none of those things, those are just conclusions that some people think Darwin’s theory implies. While it does throw doubt on a really literal reading of Genesis, it hardly precludes the existence of God. Evolutionary theory says almost nothing about ethics, except perhaps implying that ethics help survival of the group. “Man is only an animal” is so subjective that it can’t really be evaluated.

@Joe Keysor

You may be aware that there are numerous scientific problems with evolution. One of them has to do with the genetic mechanism. A fish fin can not gradually turn into a leg by some sort of vague and unknowable process as Darwin imagined (he knew nothing or next to nothing of genetics). There have to be huge numbers of changes in the skeletal structure and the nervous system, not to mention others, all of them happening simultaneously (a change in the skeletal structure without a corresponding change in the nervous system would be of no benefit). Not that I have too much faith in arguments of this type, since Darwinists believe in the theory by faith, but scientifically and genetically great numbers of highly complex and interrelated changes do not happen simultaneously by random mutation and have never happened. That is why constant experiments with fruit flies yield in the end nothing but fruit flies. The boundaries of species are fixed, not fluid, as Darwin imagined.

Please don’t tell me about finch beaks or dog sizes. Variations within the boundaries of an existing species (microevolution) do not prove transformations of one species into another (macroevolution).

Whales have vestigal leg bones . Why would whales have legs, if they live in the water? Perhaps they once lived on land. If whales can evolve from land animal to water animal, I have no trouble believing that water animals can evolve to be land animals.

@Joe Keysor

Really, we should discuss “What is a Christian?” According to my understanding, someone who participates in a gay pride parade and supports abortion is not a Christian. Do you think Hillary believes that the bible is the inspired word of God, that there will be a day of judgement, that those who have been saved by faith in Christ can go to heaven while the lost will go to hell?

for what it’s worth, a belief in hell and a belief in a day of judgement are hardly required to be christian, even by your standards. There is very little biblical support for hell. Jesus does mention that unbeleivers will gnash their teeth, so He does expect punishment for unbelievers, but he never claims eternal punishment, nor is fire and brimstone mentioned. Day of judgement has similarly shaky grounds (I’m assuming that you’re talking about revelations style armageddon here). Revelations, if you actually read it isn’t exactly a straightforward description of any kind of armegeddon. It is a fuzzy description of a dream that uses a lot of symbolism. Sure, it could mean armegeddon, but it could also be about early persecution of the christian church. Surely you aren’t going to claim that someone who believes in the bible, but interprets it differently than you isn’t christian, are you?

@Joe Keysor

I do not say someone who goes to a Methodist church cannot be a Christian. I do not say someone who is oposed to the war on Iraq is not a Christian. I am aware that people can be true Christians and go to different denominations and have different political views.

unless those political views include gay rights or abortion, apparently

@Joe Keysor

Are you saying there should be no definition of Christianity at all, so that everyone in the world is called a Christian, no matter what they say or do or believe?

That’s not what Diogenes said

@Joe Keysor

Many people identify themselves as Christians. All of this will be cleared up on the day of judgement. God knows those who have believed on his Son and been cleansed by his blood, and those who have not. It is not a question of being for or against the death penalty, or for or against the war in Iraq. Christians can have differing political views.

unless those views include gay rights, abortions or pornography.

@Joe Keysor

There is no agreed upon definition of Christian values on things not mentioned in the bible, such as Iraq or whatever, but there are basic standards the bible stresses repeatedly.

1. In my view, most Republicans are not Christians. Jesus said, “Straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life and few find it.” Genuine Christians are a minority in America.
2. I believe that anyone who supports and approves of a mother murdering her own child is not a Christian, no matter if they go to church, no matter if they call themselves a Christian or not. The bible’s teaching is plain - murderers will go to hell, unless they repent and are forgiven

Why is killing Iraqis Christian, but killing fetuses not?

[Larry_Borgia]

New Iskander, I’m just popping in to say Thank You for the industrious quote mining above. I was going to do something similar, but was too lazy, so I appreciate your doing it.

I agree that there are a lot of disturbing things in Nietzche, but anti-semitism isn’t one of them. Even when Nietzche was dying and insane he didn’t say “let’s kill all the Jews,” he said “Let’s kill all the anti-semites.” Blaming Hitler on Nietzche is like blaming the weatherman for the storm he predicted.

Again, New Iskander, we probably don’t agree on a lot, but I do appreciate you coming to FN’s defence against this common but baseless charge.

[foolsguinea]

@rfgdxm

Yep. Note that “Social Darwinists” would hold the position that the state should let people succeed or fail on their own, without state intervention. The Nazi death camps would be inconsistent with social Darwinism, as this would be interfering with the natural order of things.

Wait, doesn’t that make Lib a Social Darwinist?

[New_Iskander]

Larry Borgia,

I suspect as far as beliefs and ideas go, we might have quite a few things in common. Perhaps I need to work on my methods of expression.
Taber,

Thanks for answering my prayers.
Joe Keysor,

With all due respect, if you really believe so fervently in your version of Christian God as you put it out, you have absolutely no business reading Nietzsche. Some things just don’t mix. Put your energy into positive deeds.

[Larry_Borgia]

Joe Keysor, re your link in post #44. You may want to find a cite other than a web page that is not only anti-evolution but also anti-Copernican. Unless you too reject Heliocentrism. I’d also point out that it’s a bit odd that you, who seem so concerned about Nietzche’s alleged anti-semitism, would link to a page that is a hair away from Holocaust denial.

[Liberal]

@foolsguinea

Wait, doesn’t that make Lib a Social Darwinist?

Since you cannot manage the self-control to save your potshots for the Pit, I’ll respond to your idiotic argument. Affirmation of the consequent is a logical fallacy. Just because a cow is a bovine does not mean that a bovine is a cow. Social Darwinism carries more implications than non-interference by state, which, by the way, is not something that I categorically advocate.

[Sevastopol]

John Gardner, 1912-
Nickelson’s Ghosts

…poor syphilitic Neitzsche, who in 1889 had run into the street to throw his arms around the neck of a horse as its master was beating it to its knees, after which moment “the antichrist” was never again sane … the best mind in Europe reduced in one instant of passionate sympathy … to rubble.

[FordPrefect]

@Joe Keysor

As to the top-notch antisemitism, not the vulgar Wagnerian type, Nietzsche did believe that much of what passed for antisemitism was itself infected with Jewish values. He thought that any concept of a spiritual dimension or force whatsoever, even in philosophers such as Kant, was Jewish infection. He felt that other forms were shallow and inconsistent, and did not get to the root of the problem, unlike his own more thorough and radical analysis in the Antichrist.

Having read this book The Gift of the Jews by Thomas Cahill, it seems that the Jewish people can make a strong claim that their ancestors were largely, if not completely, responsible for both the concept of monotheism, and human individuality. Which, from the little reading of Nietzsche I have done, would seem abhorrantly exclusive to each other. Worshipping a god while being independant would seem like a step backwards for him. So if FN made comments against the Jews for conceiving of monotheism, while praising them for conceiving of individuality, it need not be seen as anti-semitism.