I will not be dragged into a discussion about the writings of Marx or Nietzsche.
Right. That’s in spirit with the OP.
Can you see how the following quote would appeal to them, being militaristic expansionists:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me”?
That’s from the Gospel of Luke. Is that the message that the book was trying to convey?
Chester, that is mostly metaphorical. You cannot understand Nietzsche until you grasp his multiple levels of meaning, his depth, his poetic and aphoristic writing style. Nietzsche is here speaking of man as he is to himself, and within a realm of ideas and psychology and interpersonal intuitive contests of will and philosophizing- but mostly about self-overcoming, personal self-awareness, evolution of the internal ‘self’. “Masters” are absolutely harsh on themselves, they live in the moment with absolute joy and affirmation of both pleasure and pain, joy and suffering are no different to them. They can commit any action, live through any circumstance, introspect and challenge themseleves in any extreme personal way, deeply dig into their consciousness and viciously rip apart or challenge or make war upon their instincts or passions as they wish, to learn self-domination and self-control and self-knowledge, and not lose the sense of who and what they are. The master dominates himself first, and only other men secondarily and as a natural consequence of his nature and the human need for social-political systems of status and hierarchy. Nietzsche is not advocating these systems, domination among men or war among men, he is merely showing the inner nature of different types of men (masters and slaves) as well as the natural real-world outcomes of these differences. The master is no better or perfect or desirable than the slave, they simply are what they are naturally.
It is in this sense that Nietzsche speaks of masters and slaves. It is in the individual nature of a person to be one or the other, with himself, and thus of course in relation to others as men live socially together. Nietzsche is saying that the strong, self-affirmative man, who loves himself and all existence equally regardless of his personal pleasure or pain, benefit or hardship, has no need for “treaties”, compromises with himself and lesser forces, harmful self-destructive tendencies, or other people who are not on his level. He will never bend his will and consciousness to another person, will only engage another person through a veritable struggle for domination and submission which takes place in the abstract realm of ideas, psychology, willpower.
There is an entire world here that Nietzsche is referring to, the inner world, rich with concepts and ideas, instincts and passions, knowledge and perspectives and paradigms, contests and conquests with oneself and others (metaphorically speaking). Nietzsche writes in aphorisms and metaphors, that is his poetic style. You cannot read him literally, as anyone who understands him a bit knows. The problem with Hitler was that he read Nietzsche literally, as you do. In order to understand Nietzsche one must first gain a nuance of perspective, a subtlety of mind, a depth of intuition and perception. . . you must be able to read between and within the lines, behind the words, think in terms other than the immediately superficial. Words are only symbolic for Nietzsche, they point to other things not readily apparent. He is the deepest writer I know of (and I read a lot) and it is not easy to approach his meanings.
If you want an introduction into his aphoristic and metaphorical style read Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Seeing how he presents his writing and ideas there is a prerequisite for understanding anything else he writes. Zarathuatra is probably the deepest of his writings, but in a way also the easiest to understand, because he makes no pretenses with his poetic style of aphorism and allusion. With his other works, he writes in multiple levels of understanding - the superficial (as with the quote you mention above, he is speaking of the reality of how “masters” and “slaves” relate to each other in real life, politically, which is only a manifestation of the inner realms of human nature and psychology) but he is not condoning or saying that this is “good or bad”, he is merely stating how it is, and why this is so; also he writes on the deeper level, below the superficial (allusions to human nature, to psychology, to the emotions and drives and instincts within us, to self-awareness and personal conflict and self-overcoming, to the struggles with ideas and knowledge and perspectives that defines all of philosophy for the individual, and therefore the natural social application thereof which gives rise to the discipline and history of Philosophy proper).
What The Last Man is saying, if you understand Last Man’s words metaphorically, is that it is completely acceptable to the purified beast-like conscience of Masterful human beings (that have through inner efforts elevated themselves above the herd) to torture, rape, act violent and break ANY moral rule of conduct that is accepted as immutable or self-evident by more inferiour members of society, that is you and I.
Only fools read The Last Man literally and think that he is defending F.Nietzsche on an internet forum. Certainly, Hitler would be involved in doing so if he was still alive.
-WL
=D>
From my recollection, this is a quote from On the Genealogy of Morals. It is quite important to look at the context of this quote. Nietzsche here is giving a history lesson in morality (re-the title of the text); what morality was for past ‘masters’. His aim is twofold when looked at in context of the entire text: 1. To show how harsh some ‘beasts’ or ‘masters’ could be, 2. How to refine the ‘good conscience’ of ‘master morality’ into something that can lead Europe out of democratic decadence.
The ‘good conscience’ and ‘bad conscience’ is examined in detail in this text. The ‘bad conscience’ (a kind of Christian induced self-hatred) Nietzsche diagnosis as leading modernity further into nihilism. By examining the ‘good conscience’ of past ‘masters’, Nietzsche tries to fine tune what made their life ‘joyful’ in order to lead Europe out of decadence and nihilism. Of course a misreading of that quote will end up being propaganda for the Nazis. This is why the rabble should be kept clear of such philosophical endeavours. This analysis, really, is only the tip of the iceberg.
Feel free to take my interpretation of the metaphorical nature of Nietzsche’s writings literally, as we both know it is meant to be taken.
And yes, ‘common’ rules and morals and social codes of conduct are precisely what the “master” is freed from being bound to - that is, those rules and morals and codes of the slave. The master has his own rules, morals and codes, thus making him no less “human, all to human” than the slave, but, then again, Nietzsche is not praising or advocating the master above the slave - neither is his goal. His goal is the Overman, who is above and beyond both master and slave moralities, indeed is truly and completely Beyond Good and Evil in ways that the master and slave are not.
I certainly have no problem that you get your rocks off here playing grab-ass, to each his own, of course. But I must nonetheless extend the invitation to you that you are, at any time, free to form an actual response and engagement here, of any kind, to my interpretations of and thoughts on Nietzsche, if you find yourself so inclined. But barring such an actual honest engagement, I fear must unfortunately refrain from your little games, if only that I have more important things to be doing than participating in a circle-jerk of little children’s egos.
I almost choked on my drink reading this…
I would certainly hope so.
It’s not forbidden to “metaphorize” Nietzsche into wistful vapours of French parfume, but be informed. I consider doing so a standing invitation for me and others to swoop in like vultures and make fun. If you stop 'fuming, then I will not be able to make your approach seem ridiculous any longer!
No one should forget when reading these books that a writer is quite capable of making even the foulest atrocity appear esteemable, worthwhile, actually necessary (at will) - and is especially free to do so when addressing himself to the intellectual reader. It is a little more difficult with the simple folk, who are closer to the earth and for whom conscience is not a “treaty” (as made between enemies), but a co-feeling and co-knowing with the other members of their immediate community. In these circumstances, the Nietzschean Enlightened Beast-Masters are called simply “evil shamans”, and are forced to live on the swampy outskirts. Perhaps virgins are occasionally sacrificed to them, so as to ensure good harvests, or perhaps they are less fortunate and instead their role is only to get beaten by any passing peasantman whenever caught - and so are forced to live nocturnally. The specifics of their social status hardly matter, no one pays heed to the evil shaman’s virtiginous political programmes, nor to their impeccable reasons.
What is decisive is that they are ‘of the Left Hand’. They are dark forces, and they want to do the whims of their father, the Devil. Everyone is being altogether too naive, as they play with this fire in the age of the information deluge. What can be said, when there are still many who think that the “free spirits” of BGE is a reference to them, Nietzsche’s faithful post-modern readers!! I must be the one to disappoint such readers; there is a very specific European fraternity that has an almost exclusive claim to this and many other covert nametags frequently dropped by the philosopher. Somehow, it all gets forgotten and “photoshopped” away today, when exactly this constitutes the very essence of the ancient and self-perpetuating archconstruct that F.Nietzsche stands for, represents in his books.
Explorers! Warriors! Brave praiseworthy people. Please try much harder and more sincerely (even if it makes us look like fools), to avoid confusing the exotic sense of violent vertigo that certain primal scent-parfumes arouse and the modest original purity of simple mountain air.
“COBECTb”
Here we have an anglicized representation the exact word which the Russians and some others in the East still use for “conscience”. The word is very old. Consider its appearance, first of all. The features resemble, call to mind, ancient runic script, in which B is, roughly, our English “v” and C is the English “s”. Indeed, that is how the slavs also read it today. The structure is prefix+root, Co + VEST’. The prefix is quite trivial, being identical to the English co- (as in “co-operation”, etc.) However, the root’s exact etymology is ‘something of a mystery’. The root VEST is the same as in AVESTA, the name used by Iranians for the sacred texts of prophet Zarathustra. Elder Avestan and many other archaic languages are part of the so-called Indo-Iranian language group, including Vedic Sanskrit - together they formed the veritable “backbone” of modern European languages.
All of the Indo-Iranian, or more simply, Aryan languages, include prominent forms of this foundation-root, ‘VEST’, often translated as “veneration” or “praise”. In the Slavic group, ‘VEST’ commonly also carries another meaning in parallel: “to give news”. This combination should immediately bring to mind the Greek “EUANGELION”, the gospel, “the good news”. Thus, to the Aryans, “conscience” at the concept’s primordial root implies a WORLD-DEFINING co-veneration, co-praising, co-evangelism. And what is remarkable, is that all this co-evangelizing predates any conceivable “christianity” by thousands and thousands of years.
-WL
The Last Dude
I’m sorry for this post… It was a rather worthless piece of commentary on my part… that annoyed you and made me look like a troll. 
I humbly ask your forgiveness. 
I’ve no doubt that the Nazis would subvert anything to their cause (like Nietzsche they were immoral), they had “God with us!” on the belt buckles of their troops after all (liars!).However, in Nietzsche they had clever philosophical argument for exactly what they wanted. Can you imagine the Nazis using a Jesus quote to their advantage?
All books are open to interpretation if their authors are dead, but it is clear that Nietzsche hated Christianity because it represented the opposite of his opinion.The bible quote isn’t like “rape ,murder and enjoy it” is it? Sin is all about motive, not act.
People try to dress Nietzsche up like he cared about the human condition, when it is clear he didn’t give a fuck about people, he only cared about ideas (shit ones at that).
Let’s compare a few quotes:
and
Haha.
So what was his objection to Christianity? How clear is it he didn’t care about people?
So if God tells you to rape, murder and enjoy it, it’s not a sin. Or if he tells you to blow yourself up, or fly a plane into a building, or shoot a doctor. You only have the purest motives, serving God. And of course, you have direct access to him.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord
Deuteronomy 20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Shooting fish in a barrel.
Were you actually apologising here, Mad Man, or were you being the duck’s ass instead of the duck? The implication wasn’t explicit enough.
Yup… I really was.
Don’t get used to it though… I rarely make mistakes… or at least… I rarely make mistakes I’m willing to own up to.
Well then I want to apologize to you…I made a semi-mistake.
Keep quacking. 
The OT is a bit on the vicious side, I do agree ( 
), luckily it is ameliorated by the more important (for Christians) NT. It’s like if Nietzsche’s later works showed a clear softening of his stance I wouldn’t consider him such a nasty cunt.
Let’s get this straight, it is clear that the Christian view and Nietzsche’s are polar opposites no matter how you try to equate them.
So what is his stance? How did it change through his works (I’ll give you that it did)?
You haven’t read him because he’s unChristian?