Abstract: Nietzsche’s irrational doctrines have contributed to the emergence of self-destructive extremism on both the right and left ends of the political spectrum. The realization of his Übermensch ideal is not about achieving greatness as an individual but rather about greatness as a collective whole, specifically as a European empire. His philosophy stands in stark contrast to genuine conservatism, which is rooted in Christian principles.
Keywords: conservatism, perspectivism, traditionalism, New Right, identitarian, postmodernism, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Heraclitus, extremism, antisemitism, will to power, logos, Christianity.
Introduction
Nietzsche has met with remarkably little opposition. As historian Malcolm Bull notes: “Even those philosophies for which he consistently reserved his most biting contempt — socialism, feminism and Christianity — have sought to appropriate their tormentor. Almost everybody now claims Nietzsche as one of their own; he has become what he most wanted to be — irresistible” (Bull, 2011, ch. 2). Fortunately, it appears that scholars have finally started to accept his words as they are, without the need for excessive interpretation. Political scientist Ronald Beiner says:
One of the truly great mysteries of twentieth- (and now twenty-first-) century intellectual life is how a thinker as forthrightly and bluntly antiegalitarian and antiliberal as Friedrich Nietzsche could have become pretty much the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century (a phenomenon then replicated by a philosophical successor no less antiegalitarian and antiliberal — namely, Martin Heidegger). The intellectual influence of Nietzsche is of staggering breadth — not least within the precincts of the intellectual and cultural left. The solution of this puzzle will probably be left to sociologists of knowledge fifty or a hundred years from now. In the meantime, however, we must do our best to weigh the intellectual power of Nietzsche while at the same time fully appreciating the dangerousness or possible perils of that intellectual power. The same goes for Heidegger. (Beiner, 2018, ‘Introduction’)
The philosopher Jonathan Glover observes that “Nietzsche’s own outlook, the basis for his
‘revaluation of values’, contains much that is terrible. It includes intermittent racism, contempt for
women, and a belief in the ruthless struggle for power. He rejected sympathy for the weak in favour of a
willingness to trample on them” (Glover, 1999, p. 11). Accordingly, Bull finds that Nietzsche’s
elitism is not only fundamental to his entire worldview, it is so profound that it leads naturally to the
conclusion that “the great majority of men have no right to existence” (Bull, 2011, ch. 2).
Nietzschean defenders argue that Nietzsche has no direct connection to Nazism; however, this perspective lacks
objectivity. His philosophy did offer a convenient justification for certain aspects of their ideology. In the era
of the Third Reich, Nietzsche was hailed as the “official philosopher of Nazism.” While it is evident
that Nietzsche would have opposed many facets of Nazi ideology, this does not negate the possibility of
interpreting his unorthodox philosophical concepts through a biological lens, such as the pursuit of territory and
eugenic policies. The fundamental concept of the “will to power” and Nietzsche’s endorsement of
war for its intrinsic value closely align with Nazi ideology. This alignment played a role in advancing Nazi
politics and the resurgence of a pagan worldview. Historian Steven Aschheim says:
Here was a German thinker with what appeared to be genuinely thematic and tonal links, who was able to provide the Nazis with a higher philosophical pedigree and a rationale for central tenets of their weltanschauung. As Franz Neumann noted in 1943, Nietzsche “provided National Socialism with an intellectual father who had greatness and wit, whose style was beautiful and not abominable, who was able to articulate the resentment against both monopoly capitalism and the rising proletariat.” (Aschheim, 1992, pp. 235-36)
1.
Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead!” While I concur with his assertion that the merciless
“Superman” emerges in the wake of God’s demise, let us look more closely at the obscure concepts
underlying his philosophy. In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche introduces the concept of “the blond
beast,” referring to the Germanic Übermensch who overcomes what he calls “Christian slave
morality” — a concept that forms the core of his thesis. This is often understood as
individualism; however, it can be argued that it is merely an extension of Hegel’s philosophy, in which the
ideal human is depicted as a being that is inherently collective. The Germanic tribes should unite as one strong
and cohesive force.
Nietzsche’s disdain for nationalism stems from his conviction that the nations of Europe ought to unify and
establish a continental empire. He envisions a united European empire and questions whether the legacy of Rome or
Judah will triumph. This is not merely metaphorical; it concerns physical peoples and their cultures, with the
German positioned against the Jewish. It is proclaimed that the settlement between Rome and Judah is imminent, and
we must reignite the “old fire” once more (GM I: 16-17). This happens by building “a new caste to
rule over the Continent” (BGE § 208). It is well-known that individualism and collectivism go hand in
hand.
Nietzsche’s anti-Semitism is explicit, yet ambiguous. He argues that Jewish culture and morality caused the
“moral slave revolt” and the downfall of the Roman Empire, as well as events like the Reformation and
French Revolution, which he considered catastrophic (GM I:16). To build his envisioned empire, he advocates
eradicating both Christianity and Jewish culture and religion from Europe, as they undermine the concept of an
empire. To establish the empire, one must be willing to employ slavery and tyranny (BGE § 242).
Nietzsche’s solution to the ‘Jewish problem’ in Germany (“mit diesem Quantum
‘Jude’ fertig zu werden”) does not necessarily involve war and extermination. Rather, he
advocates for the elimination of Jewishness through assimilation, including intermarriage. Consequently, he
criticizes the crude and vulgar form of anti-Semitism. Nietzsche believed that the Jews were ‘racially
pure’ and that racial mixing could strengthen the European character, which had become weakened (BGE
§ 251). Evidently, he was unaware that European Jews were already racially mixed — likely
possessing more European genetic heritage than Semitic.
Nietzsche figuratively equates Christians with Jews, as they have adopted the Jewish slave morality: “The
Christian is simply a Jew belonging to a ‘reformed’ confession” (AC § 44). His book The
Antichrist has become an influential text among white power movements, as it curses figures like Socrates,
Plato, Jesus, and Paul for promoting “the true and the good” as guiding principles. As they emphasize
morality and reason, he associates them with Jewish sentiment and morality: “The Sophists were Greeks. When
Socrates and Plato sought virtue and justice, they were Jews, or I know not what” (WP § 429).
In a postmodern spirit, Nietzsche declares truth and morality to be mere illusions concealing the slave
natures’ self-interest and power struggles (GS I:21; GM I:13). He believes the aristocratic human should not
be constrained by morality and truth, as there is “only perspectival seeing, only perspectival
‘knowing’ ” (GM III:12). It is the “higher human’s” striving for power
and self-fulfillment that can make culture magnificent. Nietzsche advocates overthrowing Christian Western
civilization to make room for the Superman, embodying an aristocratic fascist philosophy: “The weak and the
failed must perish — the first principle of our love for humanity. And they must be given all
possible assistance” (AC § 2).
Nietzsche expresses the view that the majority of people do not have a right to life, as they only have a
destructive effect on the noble individuals of the race. He states, “I do not give the unfit this right.
There are also unfit peoples” (WP § 872). He advocates abolishing democracy and returning to an
aristocratic, hierarchical society with elite rule and a caste system, including the reintroduction of slavery:
Every elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be — a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. (BGE § 257)
Nietzsche’s philosophy of perspectivism expresses deep skepticism towards all kinds of truth and knowledge. This raises questions about taking his own “truths” seriously, as according to himself, his truth claims have no inherent priority. Thus, his philosophy can be seen as propaganda, with the hope that his subjective perspective will inspire the German people to rise up and defeat the Jewish dragon. His subjectivism is also expressed in his view of mythology. Already in The Birth of Tragedy he advocates the “rebirth of Germanic myth” (BT § 23).
2.
By perspectivism, Nietzsche does not mean one’s own perspective on an objective truth that lies
beyond comprehension. Nor does it involve aggregating multiple perspectives to obtain a more complete picture.
Rather, it means proceeding from one’s own perspective and seizing power to enhance one’s perfection in
life. He argues that truth as permanent being is an illusion: “…what we call consciousness constitutes
only one state of our spiritual and psychic world (perhaps a pathological state) and not by any means the whole
of it” (GS § 357).
Our understanding is limited to our own awareness, not the external world itself (cf. GS § 354). The concept
of the thing-in-itself is deemed meaningless, as we are bound by our perceptions within the observable world. This
world is in a constant state of flux and transformation. However, there exists a desire for enduring truths through
the elevated perspective of values (such as ideas and categories), which constructs the perception of a structured
reality. Therefore, the basis of existence lies not in a transcendent form, but in the drive for power, seeking
stability and truth. Yet, as this will solidifies and imposes its truths, it suppresses the fluid reality of
change.
Nietzsche argues that the pursuit of truth hinders the natural creative impulse, which he defines as the
enhancement of power (Machtsteigerung). He suggests that while ‘truth’ may stifle life, it is
life’s inherent drive to seek enduring truths and order. When one perspective dominates, others are
subjugated under the pretense of an objective “truth”:
To the extent to which knowledge has any sense at all, the world is knowable: but it may be interpreted differently, it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses. – “Perspectivity.” It is our needs that interpret the world; our instincts and their impulses for and against. Every instinct is a sort of thirst for power; each has its point of view, which it would fain impose upon all the other instincts as their norm. (WP § 481)
Nietzsche’s perspective stands in stark contrast to the scientific endeavour. Scientists seek to discover
the underlying stable laws that govern reality, marveling at the extreme sophistication and complexity uncovered.
It is not about constructing a mere perspective, but determining objective truth. Understanding how the world
objectively functions has enabled the development of advanced technologies. Science follows the Platonic principle
of turning one’s gaze away from the shadow images on Plato’s cave wall and looking towards the cave
entrance, where the forms exist that cause the shadow images (Republic, 514a-520a). This was how
Ludwig Boltzmann (1844 – 1906) proved the existence of atoms (cf. Gimbel, 2024).
In contrast, Nietzsche seeks to descend into the darkness of the cave, rejecting the existence of forms and,
consequently, the relative value of the shadow images. He believes that the will to power, which can create any
order, lies in the darkness. For him, seeking truth is equivalent to drinking from this primal source. By doing so,
he inverts Platonism. The shadow images do not require interpretation, as humans possess the power to create new
ones. Consequently, Nietzsche elevates art as essential, providing the will to power with opportunities for
creation. Nietzsche is aptly categorized as a subjectivist. Moreover, his striving into the darkness renders him
the philosopher of unconsciousness. His followers contribute to a cult of unconsciousness that, in an artistic
spirit, elevates nonsense to truth and disseminates confused misinterpretations of reality, a characteristic of
thinkers like Julius Evola and Alexander Dugin (see Winther, 2020).
Nietzsche discards the concept of the thing-in-itself, thereby rejecting the distinction between phenomenon and
reality. While he acknowledges Kant’s emphasis on the subject’s supremacy, he does not engage in
Kantian epistemological reasoning. The nature of the object, as such, is irrelevant to Nietzsche. His philosophy
aims to undermine the morality of scientific truth and replacing it with the morality of life, which is the will to
power. Although he does not deny the existence of objective reality, he considers it irrelevant. If Nietzsche has
any serious ontology, it would be a distorted version of Heraclitus’ philosophy.
In The Gay Science, he states that “[t]he total character of the world, however, is in all eternity
chaos — in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form,
beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms” (GS § 109).
From a modern perspective, this gives the wrong picture. In truth, we are enveloped by a magnificent order,
floating on a vast expanse of chaos.
Nietzsche argues that it is the subject which establishes ‘objectivity’ through its intimate
interaction with the object. Humans yearn for this stable structure to grasp onto, yet it remains an illusion, a
mirage: “the more emotions we express over a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we train on the same
thing, the more complete will be our ‘idea’ of that thing, our ‘objectivity.’ ”
(GM III:12).
From a Nietzschean standpoint, it is entirely coherent, rather than self-contradictory, for him to reject all
conventional notions of truth and then assert the validity of his own ideas as truth. This exemplifies the
assertion of the will to power. Truth is made subservient to the essence of life, yet life’s pursuit of power
establishes its own version of truth. This pursuit stems from the fundamental urge for self-preservation.
Nietzsche’s philosophy does not aim to uncover an inherent reality in the essence of things, but rather to
construct frameworks and concepts that facilitate life and render the world intelligible. In his philosophy, truth
is subordinate to the vitality of life (BGE).
3.
Nietzsche claims that the church’s morality is hostile to life (TI § 1, ch. ‘Morality
as…’). Helping one’s neighbour is a sign of a decadent era, where “everybody is either an
invalid or an invalid’s attendant” (TI § 37, ch. ‘Skirmishes in…’). In
contrast, a strong era is characterized by “the chasm between man and man, class and class, the multiplicity
of types, the will to be one’s self, and to distinguish one’s self” (ibid.). Nietzsche advocates
for a constant state of war with our neighbours, as he believes that envy and combativeness are the driving forces
behind human greatness. Honour and fame are the ultimate goals.
Of course, such a philosophy is fundamentally flawed; should we adopt it, society would collapse, and every
business would quickly go bankrupt. In contrast, Heraclitus states that opposites are subordinate to logos,
the principle that maintains order and justice. Humans are inherently social creatures that rely on constant help
and cooperation from fellow humans. Society is a collaborative project based on well-defined rules and norms. For
instance, the truck driver delivers food, the bank provides payment services, and the power company supplies
electricity, all of which are essential for our daily lives. As the documentary “Empire of the Ants”
shows (BBC, YouTube), even ants understand the fundamental value of cooperation and mutual aid.
The red wood ants in the Jura mountains have abandoned the classic clan society model in favour of unprecedented
cooperation. Multiple unrelated queens coexist peacefully in the same nests, wars between nests have ceased, and
they no longer enslave neighbouring ant colonies. This “civilized” model has enabled their empire to
flourish deep into the forest. The clan society has been abandoned in a way that resembles the creation of Western
unity under Christian flag. Researchers have discovered that pheromones play a crucial role in the ant empire,
allowing ants to identify each other as peaceful citizens and maintain social order.
Anthropologists note that myth serves a similar function for humans — those who believe in the
same mythical worldview identify each other as friends, a key mechanism for building civilization. This highlights
the crucial role of religion in shaping civilizations. If citizens no longer share a common myth (equivalent to the
ants’ pheromones), the civilization begins to disintegrate. In line with this, the conservative thinker
Russell Kirk explains that if religion is lost, civilization cannot survive:
What ails modern civilization? Fundamentally, our society’s affliction is the decay of religious belief. If a culture is to survive and flourish, it must not be severed from the religious vision out of which it arose. The high necessity of reflective men and women, then, is to labor for the restoration of religious teachings as a credible body of doctrine. (Kirk, 1996, p. 15)
The wood ants have left behind the Nietzschean ideals of clan thinking, war, and slavery for a more effective
cooperative system. Researchers are now attempting to understand this phenomenon, as it appears to contradict
Richard Dawkins’ theory of the selfish gene. It is presumed that altruism is merely illusory on a
genetic level. Be that as it may, nature itself seems to reject Nietzsche’s warlike elitism in favour of a
“Christian” civilizational model where ants help each other across clans. This could mean the death
blow to the Nietzschean worldview.
‘Lower’ individuals contribute to the maintenance of society and culture, from which the
‘higher’ individual arises as a product. Given that both lower and higher individuals support one
another, how can it be claimed that “slave morality” is detrimental to the higher man? Isn’t it
true that Christian morality helps to pacify the lower classes, thereby preventing Nietzsche from facing constant
assaults? Isn’t it the principles of Christianity that enabled him to secure a pension, allowing him to
dedicate himself to writing? We should examine the notion that traditional Christian morality exclusively serves
the weak. It is clear that Christianity is clever in its ability to support both higher and lower individuals. What
benefits the masses also ultimately benefits the higher man, as the latter stands on the shoulders of lower people.
Why couldn’t Nietzsche see this?
Today we know that altruistic morality was not invented by the weak or impotent to create values that are
favourable to their interests. It wasn’t invented at all, but was created by evolution. Animals and humans
have developed an instinct for reciprocal altruism. Richard Dawkins says that birds have been found to help
each other in an apparently altruistic way, but refuse to help, or bore a grudge against, individuals that had
previously refused to help them. Says Dawkins:
Grudgers came to dominate the population because they passed on more genes to future generations than either Suckers (who helped others indiscriminately, and were exploited) or Cheats (who tried ruthlessly to exploit everybody and ended up doing each other down). (Dawkins, 2016, ch. 12)
Simplistic instinctual morality belongs to the natural world and wasn’t invented by human minds. It exists because it increases the survival rate of the offspring. In Dawkins book, a chapter has the heading, “Nice guys finish first.” Thus, modern findings in biology present a challenge to Nietzschean philosophy. Nor does Nietzsche manage to prove that morality thwarts the flourishing of higher men. A morality of the masses is a requirement for the growth of culture and civilization. Since the higher man only flourishes in culture and civilization, he indirectly benefits from “herd morality.” Christian morality is Grudger morality. This is evident from Paul’s letters. His Grudger morality is very outspoken.
4.
Nietzsche and Heidegger elevate the pre-Socratics, arguing Socrates and Plato’s reason-oriented philosophy
was destructive. However, the pre-Socratic Heraclitus had reason (logos) as his guiding
principle — “The Wise is One, who knows the plan that steers all things in the
universe” (DK B41). For Heraclitus, logos (Reason, Truth, Order) is the blueprint governing the
harmonious whole of opposing elements, contrary to Nietzsche’s will to power. This balance of conflicts
equals justice, the rulebook allowing life’s dynamics and the universe’s existence. The ‘fire
wind’ was Heraclitus’ symbol, which he equated with logos, an eminent symbol for the spirit.
Nietzsche argues the opposite of Heraclitus — that logos suffocates life’s dynamics. For
Nietzsche, justice and truth are insignificant, as existence’s goal is power fulfillment. He refutes the
existence of a Justice or Truth that upholds equilibrium amidst conflicting forces. It is solely about emerging
triumphant from the conflict, with the dominance of power serving as a substitute for enduring existence.
However, according to Heraclitean thinking, if this balance is disturbed, destruction follows. Being is interpreted
as the totality of the play of opposites, which the opposites partake in through this very interplay (DK 12).
Nietzsche’s thinking seems incompatible with Heraclitus and the pre-Socratics generally, who harmonize better
with Christian theology. Nietzsche’s postmodern philosophy aims at destruction and
‘deconstruction’ — disturbing the logos-governed balance of opposing forces, leading
to catastrophe.
Heidegger has demonstrated that Nietzsche misinterprets Heraclitus, placing too much emphasis on the aspect of
change and ignoring logos. Heraclitus is actually discussing the metaphysical being of existence, just like
Parmenides and all other Greek philosophers. However, he is not a materialist, like Thales and Anaximenes, as he
claims that logos maintains being. In comparison, during the Olympic Games, the participants are governed by an
organization and a set of rules. The game of opposites is maintained by logos. None of the participants are
eliminated, and none are allowed to become permanently dominant, but the game continues eternally.
Heraclitus says: “Those who step into the same river have different water flowing around them” (DK 12).
G. S. Kirk explains the river metaphor like this: “…the unity of the river as a
whole is dependent upon the regularity […] of the flux of its contituent waters. The river
provides an image of the balance of constituents in the world” (1977, p. 198). Of course, Heraclitus
means that the river exists because it constantly flows. It is illogical to claim that the river does not have
permanent existence just because its water is constantly changing. This is also Heidegger’s position:
The ordinary version of the philosophy of Heraclitus likes to sum it up in the saying panta rhei, “everything flows.” If this saying stems from Heraclitus at all, then it does not mean that everything is mere change that runs on and runs astray, pure inconstancy, but instead it means: the whole of beings in its Being is always thrown from one opposite to the other, thrown over here and over there — Being is the gatheredness of this conflicting unrest. (Heidegger, 2000, § 102)
Nietzsche posits that only becoming exists. Stable being is our striving, even if it can only take the form of temporary power dominance. However, Jessica N. Berry argues that Heraclitus can hardly have claimed the priority of becoming, since the focus is so much on logos:
To whatever degree the “flux” motif appears in Heraclitus, it is overshadowed by the theme of logos, and by themes of measure (metron), regularity, order, design, law, and necessity. […] The idea is that natural change occurs in measured, regular cycles and that it is governed by an orderly principle, logos. (Gemes & Richardson, p. 97)
Thus, Heraclitus is in some agreement with Plato, as both believe in the fixed order in an abstract sense. Even
the only certainly authentic flux-theoretical sentence, no. 12, does not align with Nietzsche’s radical
position. Heraclitus seems to mean that the “fire wind” is identical with logos, which implies that
logos corresponds to the river water. It is both the lawfulness itself and the flow of reality. He thus formulates
a monistic worldview, unlike Plato’s dualistic one. The conclusion is Nietzsche built on loose foundations,
mostly deriving from Schopenhauer’s unsound metaphysics.
For Nietzsche, the only way something can achieve temporary permanence is through the defeat of opposing forces in
the power struggle, allowing one’s own will and worldview to achieve dominance. The very impulse of life is
to strive for stable truth and order, which, according to perspectivism, is one’s own truth. In this way, we
can shape the ordered and stable existence that we long for, until life’s power striving manifests anew.
However, this is not how Heraclitus describes the play of opposites. Permanence does not arise from one side
dominating, as that destroys being (logos) — the totality of the interplay itself. Regardless of
whether Nietzsche has understood Heraclitus or not, it cannot be claimed he built upon his philosophy.
5.
Nietzsche’s worldview is rooted in mythology, rather than philosophy, as he fails to formulate a logically coherent theory. Richard Perkins notes:
There are innumerable Nietzsches: and as a result there is no “true” Nietzsche, To encounter him in his writings is to confront a fluid and polymorphic multiplicity. To struggle with his ideas is to examine the living tissue of perhaps the most protean of all protean thinkers. Now he is the devoted disciple of Heraclitus and Schopenhauer and Wagner. But now he is a Free Spirit, the defiant “Prinz Vogelfrei.” He is by turns the Wanderer and his Shadow: by turns the Troubadour, the Madman, the Buffoon. He is the reticent prophet Zarathustra and his three Spiritual metamorphoses. He is the Immoralist, the Antichrist, the raging Blond Beast. Now he is Dionysos: and now the Crucified. Yet there is no “true” Nietzsche lurking behind dark veils to reveal or to conceal his inner nature. The man himself is but a series of masks: and his philosophy, but an endless succession of caves behind caves. His name is “Legion”: for he is many. (Perkins, 1977)
Nietzsche affirms polytheism, including its heroic and mythological perspectives. In the Babylonian epic, the
god-man Marduk defeats the chaos dragon Tiamat, resulting in the creation of the ordered universe from
Tiamat’s deceased body. Although this is a myth that contradicts scientific facts, it remains valuable
as an imaginative narrative that can be stored in our personal and collective memory. The incredibly complex and
seemingly chaotic reality becomes emotionally manageable when summarized in symbolic form (cf. van der Linden,
2011). Christianity also tells the story of Christ defeating the dragon and imprisoning it in the underworld.
However, at the end of time, the bonds will break (just like with the Fenris wolf).
The key difference lies in the fact that Christianity distinguishes between the sensible and the supersensible (the
heavenly, transcendent). The Christian myth is heavenly — the Christ event is transcendent, and
therefore not a pattern of interpretation for earthly existence, where science and reason have the final say.
(Augustine, in his work Genesi Ad Litteram I, scolds Christians who ignore scientific facts.) So, what has
science discovered about the emergence of order? It does not arise from the victory of a heroic god-man. Instead,
the universe, biological systems, and society have evolved. Sublime order emerges through
evolution.
Nietzsche rejects all transcendence, causing the mythological narrative to become profaned, akin to how earthly
life was interpreted in pagan times. Conquering with the sword becomes the means of creating a new and vital order.
The dragon slain by the heroic superman personifies the old order that has become lifeless and mechanized.
Nietzsche has an almost Gnostic, fundamentally unscientific mythological perspective on existence. His modern
followers, the “identitarian” New Right, seem to take pagan myths seriously, as if they referred to the
earthly realm. This causes the healing effect to be lost, and the consequences to instead be destructive. It is
counterproductive, as success necessitates rationality and scientific rigour; yet, such thinking appears to be
emblematic of our materialistic era. In the book Maps of Meaning, psychologist Jordan B. Peterson
has formulated such a Nietzschean worldview within a Hegelian framework (see Winther, 2018).
The philosopher Peter Levine has analyzed the reified concept of culture inherited from Nietzsche and pointed
at its damaging consequences. The reification of culture involves perceiving it as a self-contained
“super-organic” entity with its own forces and objectives. Says Levine:
But it is important to recognize that it was on these frankly irrational foundations that Nietzsche’s Weltanschauung-historicist critique of truth rested. For his critique of truth depended, as I have said, on a notion of cultures as reified wholes; and his strongest example of such a culture, hellenism, could only be sustained by a deliberate effort to forget the historical facts. (Levine, 1995, pp. 86-87)
Julius Evola, an adherent of Nietzsche’s philosophy, embraced the concept of cultural reification and
crafted a mythological worldview infused with profane elements (cf. Harding, 2024). His use of narcotics likely
impaired his sense of reality on a permanent basis. Evola’s “magical idealism” can be viewed as a
form of neo-paganism inspired by Nietzschean philosophy. He believed himself to be a descendant of a spiritual
elite that ruled during the golden age of culture in ancient Doric Greece. In the current iron age, he saw it as
his mission to attempt to recreate the era of the spiritual aristocracy.
However, his efforts to influence Mussolini and Hitler with his ideas were unsuccessful. The worldly projection of
reviving the golden age through political power diminishes the value of his life’s work, and his thoughts
never gained significant traction. It is evident that Evola’s worldview, being highly unscientific, does not
appeal to modern sensibilities. He also referred to his doctrine as “radical traditionalism.”
Nevertheless, his thinking remains associated with fascism, albeit in a form that is aristocratic rather than
plebeian.
6.
Neither Socrates nor Plato were rationalists postulating truths, but rather seekers of truth through
questioning. Plato wrote in dialogue form allowing different views to clash, even representing Nietzsche’s
position. In the Gorgias, Callicles presents the idea that the inferior use morality to “enslave those
who are by nature better” (491e-492a), a viewpoint Plato critiques. However, Nietzsche never acknowledges
Plato for originally formulating this idea.
What drove Socrates was the love of philosophy and truth-seeking, pursuing Goodness, Truth and Beauty by
questioning accepted truths of his time. Nietzsche’s view of Christian morality as “slave
morality” is false. It is really built on reciprocity embracing both high and
low — “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).
Christianity rejects both slave and master morality, which Nietzsche wrongly believes are the only alternatives
(BGE § 260). It evolves from an antiquated “eat or be eaten” perspective that contemporary
biology has discarded, as nature serves as a realm of collaboration where ‘ethical reciprocity’ emerges
as the most efficient strategy for survival.
Christian morality is founded on trust and ‘reciprocal altruism,’ which means that individuals are
willing to cooperate as long as others also contribute. This is the moral framework that underpins Western
civilization, a phenomenon that also occurs in the animal kingdom (cf. Wiki: ‘Reciprocal altruism’).
The ‘higher human’ assists the ‘lower human’ on the condition that the reverse also
applies. Paul instilled this morality in his congregations, highlighting its importance in fostering a sense of
community and cooperation. This approach is far more advanced and effective than Nietzsche’s master morality,
which prioritizes the interests of the strong over the weak.
Nietzsche idealizes ancient Rome, drawing inspiration from the Stoic philosopher Posidonius
(135 – 51 BCE). Posidonius created the myth of Rome’s historical role, which posits that
the Roman Empire embodies humanity’s brotherhood according to the natural and universal order. In this view,
power dominance is not the right of the strong, but rather the right of the better. The Romans gradually adopted
the Stoic worldview, and by the first century CE, the notion of Rome as the incarnation of the Stoic cosmopolis was
well established (cf. Dyson, 2005, p. 132).
Nietzsche revives Posidonius’ dream, advocating that the ‘higher humans’ should wield power.
However, Augustine offers a different perspective. In his masterpiece The City of God, he refutes the Stoic
and Roman ideal, arguing that humanity and the world are fallen and therefore incapable of creating a perfect
society on earth. According to Christian theology, there will always be conflict, suffering, and corruption until
Christ’s return. Augustine’s views anticipate the second law of thermodynamics, which states that
everything in existence is subject to decay and erosion. Only Jesus Christ can bring about transformation and
redemption.
Christianity distinguishes between the profane and the spiritual, emphasizing the importance of separating earthly
and heavenly concerns. Paul urges slaves to obey their masters without complaint (Col. 3:22-4:1), while Jesus
teaches that one should “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark
12). This approach encourages individuals to focus on their spiritual lives, rather than seeking to accumulate
wealth and power. If the Christian view is that one should not generally rebel against authority, and that slaves
should obey their masters, how can Nietzsche accuse Christianity of being a moral slave revolt? Nietzsche, who
claims to be an atheist, nonetheless embraces paganism and polytheism, failing to distinguish between the earthly
and the heavenly (GS § 143). This failure to distinguish between the two domains causes him to champion a
utopian vision that is ultimately unattainable and unrealistic.
Nietzsche, like Marx and Hegel, focuses on the realm of worldly existence. But to aspire towards the
reestablishment of an Imperium Romanum inevitably breeds misery and is ultimately destined for failure. Any
philosophical teachings that seek to bring about a perfect society are categorized as utopian. Followers of
Nietzschean philosophy and leftist ideologies project their spiritual aspirations onto the material world,
convinced that life’s purpose is realized only upon the establishment of a specific secular order. But what
is the point of this worldly striving? One may acquire power, accumulate wealth, and establish residence in a grand
abode, yet ultimately, one’s existence is terminated by death. What’s the purpose of it all?
Nietzsche blames the decline of ancient culture on Christianity. However, the decline of the ancient pantheon began
long before the birth of Christ. The pre-Socratics had already criticized the naive and amoral polytheism, leading
to a decline in faith. During the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14 – 37 CE), a sailor named Thamus,
on his way to Italy, heard a divine voice announcing the death of the god Pan. At the same time, he heard
lamentations from the shore. When Tiberius received the news, he appointed a commission of inquiry (cf. Wiki:
‘Pan (God)’).
The ancient worldview was dying, leaving behind only the pursuit of power, wealth, and indulgence. Roman writers
were appalled by the moral decay and compared it unfavourably to the nobility of the original Romans. Christianity
slowly conquered a culture where people were more than ready to hear a new message. Paul’s undermining of the
Artemis cult in Ephesus, which severely affected the city’s economy, was not the result of political or
military power struggles, but simply a matter of elevated consciousness. He spread the message of the Way, and
people’s eyes were opened. The ancient consciousness was already outdated, and people were ready to meet a
new era.
Even today, the myth persists that Christianity undermined Roman morality, leading to the fall of the Western Roman
Empire — a view shared by the American philosopher Sam Harris. However, we know that the
primary cause of the empire’s decline was the barbarian invasions. The so-called “noble Roman
morality” was, in reality, marked by the genocide of the Celts, cruel public executions, constant wars of
conquest, exploitation of nature, and expropriation of agricultural land, which led to poverty and famine among the
conquered peoples.
The supposed devastating impact of the “slave revolt” on Roman civilization appear perplexing when
considering the longevity of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire, which thrived for a
millennium after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In fact, Christianity had a profoundly revitalizing and
unifying effect, allowing the Western Roman Empire to endure for an additional two centuries. The emperors could no
longer act with absolute impunity, as some had in the past, because morality underwent a radical transformation
within the empire. A notable example is Emperor Theodosius, who was compelled to publicly atone before Bishop
Ambrose after the bishop condemned the emperor’s massacre in Thessaloniki.
Christianity proved to be a catalyst for the growth of the Roman Empire. When Rome eventually fell to the
Visigoths, a Romanized and relatively civilized group, the Church remained, carrying the torch of civilization
until Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope. Without Christianity, Western civilization, arguably
the most powerful and successful in world history, would never have emerged. Christianity is the vital heartbeat
that pumps life-giving blood into the body of the West.
7.
Spreading the light of consciousness is a far more effective approach than the confrontational, worldly, and
power-obsessed rhetoric employed by certain ideological movements. The focus should not be on determining who is
greatest, best, or most powerful, nor on seizing control over institutions. Instead, the emphasis should be on
embodying the light of consciousness. Vital consciousness triumphs over ignorance and false consciousness. This is
why Christians proclaim that the Christ has already prevailed. The light of consciousness multiplies and cannot be
extinguished. An aggressive rhetoric fixated on power dynamics and portraying others as enemies is
counterproductive. It sows discord in society, fosters hatred, and ultimately undermines progress. The true
adversary is not any group of individuals, but rather the materialistic ethos that pervades society. It is not
necessary to seek power everywhere. Instead, we should rely on the power of words and ideas. We should engage with
the political reality, but not indulge in a fantasy about two monolithic opposing forces: Rome versus Judea.
Nietzsche’s philosophical views stand in fundamental opposition to authentic conservatism, which is centered
on safeguarding the Western intellectual traditions rooted in Platonic philosophy and Christianity. However,
individuals who espouse right-wing radical ideologies, despite asserting conservatism, actually align themselves
with left-wing radicals in their zeal to destroy Western civilization and its foundations. Ideologies such as
Dugin’s “traditionalism” and Ayn Rand’s Nietzschean “objectivism” are
distinctly separate from genuine conservatism. It is worth noting that both left-wing and right-wing radical
movements have embraced Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s philosophical disdain for Western modernity and its
foundational principles. This is evident in the works of postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Derrida, whose
concepts have fueled the rise of ideological constructs such as identity politics, intersectionality, and
perspectivism — tools now wielded by the left to subvert Western civilization. Ironically,
Nietzsche’s philosophical impact is more prominently visible in left-wing movements that erroneously lay
claim to it, rather than in right-wing factions.
The destruction of our democratic civilization will inevitably lead to a resurgence of tribalism. Nietzsche’s
vision of rule by an elite minority is already the reality in clan-based cultures. Western civilization, however,
represents a unique exception that has allowed us to transcend the limitations of tribalism. The erosion of our
cultural heritage will therefore inevitably result in the re-emergence of clan-based
rule — which is precisely what Nietzsche advocates for, albeit under the guise of a
“caste” system.
However, Nietzsche’s strategy of creating a hereditary ruling class is fundamentally flawed. The reality is
that aristocratic parents often produce offspring of average ability, a phenomenon known as “regression to
the mean” (cf. Rushton, 2000, p. 32). Consequently, it is impossible to reliably cultivate an
aristocratic bloodline with consistently superior traits. Conversely, two individuals of average ability can
occasionally produce an exceptionally gifted child. This has occurred numerous times throughout history. In fact,
aristocratic bloodlines tend to degenerate over time, as illustrated by the case of the Habsburg dynasty (cf.
Dimuro, 2019). It would be naïve to suggest that Nietzsche’s envisioned power elite is not rooted in heredity
and bloodlines, as this would ignore the fundamental nature of human beings.
The ability to consistently produce exceptional offspring seems to be a challenge, even for brilliant individuals,
as their children often end up being unremarkable. Conversely, individuals who may not be considered exceptional
can occasionally give birth to remarkably gifted children. Maintaining a high average level of intelligence within
a population may increase the likelihood of exceptional individuals emerging, but this would happen unpredictably
across all social strata. Nietzsche’s philosophical views reflect an outdated aristocratic worldview that
places excessive emphasis on creating a hereditary ruling class defined by perceived superiority. Certain of these
historical practices aimed at controlling demographics and genetics are now considered unethical and
unscientific.
On the other hand, it is essential, for both economic and democratic reasons, to sustain a high average IQ within
the population. Helmuth Nyborg, a Danish psychologist, posits that Western culture and democracy necessitate a
relatively elevated average IQ. He contends that mass immigration from countries outside the Western world can
decrease this average, thereby undermining the system’s sustainability (cf. Wikipedia:
‘Helmuth Nyborg’). Such a decline, according to Nyborg, could inevitably revert society to the
undesirable state of tribalism, characterized by rival clans vying for power (cf. Winther, 2019).
8.
The real enemy is unconsciousness. This is the true dragon — the son of the Mother
Goddess, known as the Antichrist. (Unconsciousness is invariably linked to the mother complex.) This dark force
urges us to heed Nietzsche’s counsel, advocating for us to yield to the struggle for power under the guise of
unconsciousness, rather than illuminating the path with conscious light. We are encouraged to emulate jihadist
Muslims, whom Nietzsche regards as models of virtue (AC §§ 59-60). Surely, it is better to heed the warning
of author and director Michael Ventura, who says: “Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will
come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy’s methods your enemy has won. The rest is suffering and
historical opera.”
“Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain,” Friedrich Schiller said. Confronting
unconsciousness directly is often counterproductive, as it only reinforces the forces of irrationality and
darkness. An unconscious rival is impervious to reason. Attempting to reason with such people is like fencing with
the air — futile and unproductive. On the other hand, engaging with a conscious opponent can be
worthwhile, as they have a rational basis and do not represent pure evil.
Unconscious individuals are characterized by laziness and irrationality. They lack the ability to focus their
energy and work diligently, likely because this discipline was never instilled in them during their formative
years. Nonetheless, the mistake is frequently made in workplaces and communities to assign tasks to such
individuals. Inevitably, these tasks take an eternity to complete, and the results are often unsatisfactory. In
welfare societies, there seems to be a concerning regression towards unconsciousness and laziness. Over time,
systems and services appear to function worse and become increasingly expensive. To get anything accomplished,
privatization is often necessary, and companies and municipalities are forced to hire costly consultants. However,
more and more frequently, even these consultants lean towards left-wing ideologies.
When it comes time for unconscious individuals to vote, they tend not to choose the candidate who highlights the
difficulties and explains that addressing them will require hard work and significant costs. Instead, they are
drawn to the candidate who employs the winning strategy of sweeping issues under the rug. This candidate simply
promises that the government will take care of all citizens, without acknowledging the underlying problems. It can
seem counterproductive to point out problems within the democratic process, as doing so may diminish one’s
chances of garnering a majority. The only path to victory appears to be through deception and ignoring the fact
that the system is deteriorating.
One cannot expect to gain influence or power by enlightening people about threats to society or problems within
one’s company. This approach creates anxiety, and people become upset, claiming it sends negative signals,
implying the person warning about the problems welcomes destruction. The unconscious and laid-back mentality is
often rewarded today, a reflection of the fact that the unconscious person is often more relatable and appealing to
the masses. However, failing to address problems means sawing off the branch they sit on. Evil destroys itself by
being the absence of good — the absence of order and planning, as Augustine explains. Actively
fighting emptiness is impossible, like fencing in the air against an invisible enemy.
One cannot be opposed to reason! It is hardly feasible to program a computer with poetic inspiration, and reason
must always take precedence. Undoubtedly, individuals should aspire to uphold righteousness and goodness, mirroring
the ideals of Socrates and Plato. Yet, determining precisely what constitutes the right and the good proves to be a
challenging endeavour, and thus one is forced to constantly grapple with this question in the Socratic tradition.
This aligns with Paul’s perspective, which emphasizes that following religious law is commendable but
ultimately futile. The pursuit of righteousness and goodness is reliant on the grace of God. Upon liberation from
the constraints of sin and transformation into a “slave of God,” one draws nearer to the realms of
truth and virtue.
9.
True societal change comes from conscious increase among the people. Nietzsche’s philosophy, however, is
debilitating, as it preaches perspectivism, which rejects the Platonic forms of consciousness that are the very
essence of Truth. Instead, one is supposed to start from one’s own perspective and acquire power to elevate
one’s personal perfection in life. But this approach is flawed, leading to unconsciousness and a lack of
critical thinking. If ape groups had such primitive behaviour, they would have gone extinct.
Nietzsche’s ideology has resulted in a state of unconsciousness, much like how the left has embraced his cult
of unreality. They fabricate and delve into notions related to power, such as identity politics, intersectionality,
and feminist power analysis. It is worth noting that the identitarian New Right, following postmodern ideologies,
also employs concepts of identity politics and makes an analogous analysis of power struggles. This state of
unreality drives postmodernists towards delirium and neurosis, as they become ensnared in their self-constructed
realm. The fact that the real truth is replaced with the self-created “truth” has led some rational
left-wing intellectuals to start protesting against the unbridled madness.
Allan Bloom was a conservative thinker and critic of Nietzsche. His book, The Closing of the American Mind
(1987) remains a valuable read. Bloom demonstrates how German philosophy, particularly its relativism and
historicism, as exemplified by Nietzsche and Heidegger, has undermined true conservatism, which is founded on fixed
values. The left’s adoption of these thinkers has had a profoundly detrimental impact on American
intellectual life. This book shows that a genuine conservative is not aligned with Nietzsche’s philosophy.
Bloom notes:
Nietzsche’s colossal political failure is attested to by the facts that the Right, which was his only hope that his teaching would have its proper effect, has utterly disappeared, and he himself was tainted in its ugly last gasp, while today virtually every Nietzschean, as well as Heideggerian, is a leftist. (1987, p. 222)
Nietzsche represents a “new right” that seeks to abolish capitalism, which is unsurprising given his
popularity among the left. They embrace Nietzsche because he wants to destroy Western civilization, despising its
bourgeoisie, Christianity, industrial capitalism, and nationalism. He even expressed admiration for Islam. The left
loves him as a counterpoint to conservatism. Nietzsche, along with his followers Foucault and Derrida, has given
rise to today’s identity politics, intersectionality, and perspectivism, which the left uses to undermine the
West. He is a major figure on the left. In contrast, traditional conservatism (Burke, Kirk, Scruton, Gottfried,
etc.) affirms capitalism, albeit with a critical eye. Conservatism means proceeding with caution, not sawing off
the branch we are sitting on and causing mass famine and civil war. Conservatism stands for sense and reason,
condemning wild and crazy ideas.
Christianity and conservatism are inextricably linked. However, as Nietzscheans seek to dismantle Western
civilization, they target its very foundation — Christianity. The New Right aligns itself with
cultural Marxists and Islamists, collectively gnawing at the root of the tree. Yet, their confrontational strategy
only serves to fortify the opposing side. Followers of Nietzsche and Dugin adhere to a globalist perspective,
convinced that they have the situation under control and are on the brink of victory. Consequently, they promote
radicalism, activism, and an unyielding struggle for dominance. Through relentless demonization, they aim to
fracture the nation and depict their adversaries as malevolent forces. Central to the Christian message, however,
is the principle that one should not “challenge evil” (Sermon on the Mount). Doing so merely
bolsters the corrupt regime and confirms its power perspective.
The unfolding events in the world do not correspond with the New Right’s predictions, as they cannot foresee
God’s intentions. A true conservative does not build castles in the air but instead observes reality with
objectivity. They respond to this reality with sound judgment and reason, drawing on the wisdom of Augustine and
Luther. Pragmatism is crucial during times of crisis. However, indulging in imperial dreams can lead to blindness
to reality. This echoes Hitler’s behaviour when the tide of war turned against him; he became increasingly
consumed by megalomaniacal fantasies, such as the envisioned world capital, Germania (see Wiki:
‘Germania’). Embracing unrealistic Nietzschean imperial dreams is ultimately a retreat from
reality.
According to Augustine and Pascal, power is invariably corrupting, and all social systems are fundamentally flawed.
Given that no perfect alternative exists, we cannot create an ideal world. No matter our efforts, it will
inevitably bear imperfections, as we are confined to a fallen world. What we can do is patch and repair the ship on
which we sail, striving to anticipate the direction of our journey. We can seek to understand God’s
intentions, gradually reform ourselves, and elevate the general level of awareness by spreading the light of
Christianity. Ultimately, it is about keeping the ship afloat.
“Man proposes, God disposes.” Hubristic modern humans believe they can dominate the planet and direct
its course at will. However, when their “teachings” come to fruition, they often result in unforeseen
consequences. Events did not unfold as Nietzsche envisioned, nor as Marxist socialists anticipated, and fascism did
not develop in the manner Evola expected. “Man proposes, God disposes.” Thus, we must proceed with
caution and refrain from dismantling democracy and parliamentarism, because doing so may lead to outcomes that
diverge significantly from our intentions.
Modernism and globalism are inherently self-destructive, as anything founded on falsehood is destined to fail.
Ultimately, truth will prevail. Truth is akin to light, which possesses existence, while darkness is merely the
absence of light. Contrary to Nietzsche’s postmodern doctrine, not everything can gain power and endure
temporarily; power is not the ontological foundation of existence. Instead, it is truth that underpins all that is
enduring. Truth is the Logos (the Word), and this Logos is Christ.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1)
When Truth incarnates in the world, we know that the world is saved, as Truth always prevails in the end. However, Truth is transcendent, existing beyond the confines of the world. We must be guided to recognize its light.
10.
According to Nietzsche, worldly existence is an autonomous flow devoid of a transcendent (Platonic) model.
However, scientific inquiry demonstrates that everything is governed by natural laws and the most clearly defined
and stable configurations of order imaginable. For example, a grain of sand is composed of neutrons and protons
arranged in various configurations, surrounded by electrons. These core particles consist of quarks that
continuously exchange color charges. If this order were to shift even slightly, the grain of sand would cease to
exist. These particles exemplify a stable order that has persisted since the birth of the universe. Each elementary
particle appears to possess inherent programs that dictate its behavior in every situation, enabling scientists to
simulate particle collisions on computers. The particles are so tightly bound by mathematically describable rules
that quantum physics has emerged as the most successful branch of science. The universe is remarkably governed by
laws and is therefore rational. The particles and planets are indifferent to power, identity, and hierarchy; they
simply adhere to their rational instructions. Einstein once remarked: “The most incomprehensible thing about
the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
The software encoded in the human genome is remarkably sophisticated. Bill Gates has noted that “DNA is
like a computer program, but far more advanced than any software ever created.” For a living organism to
exist, it requires an extraordinarily complex, stable, and law-abiding order. A living cell is comparable to a
medium-sized city in its intricacy, featuring transportation systems and molecular machines operating continuously.
However, Darwinian evolution struggles to adequately explain how such an immensely complex code could emerge so
rapidly, as evidenced by the Cambrian explosion (cf. Wiki: ‘Cambrian explosion’).
The same puzzling question applies to the cosmos as a whole. Scientists are still perplexed by the origin of this
order. It appears to be supramundane, exquisitely fine-tuned from the moment of creation (cf. Wiki:
‘Fine-tuned universe’). The universe is remarkably Platonic and not at all the chaotic, fundamentally
incomprehensible realm that Nietzsche envisioned. We now have an enormous understanding of the inner workings of
matter, something Nietzsche thought was impossible. Logos, or rational principle, seems to be the ontological
foundation of the universe.
On the other hand, we are aware today that everything deteriorates over time, just as Augustine explained. Within a
billion years, the Earth will become a lifeless planet, scorching hot like a furnace. According to the second law
of thermodynamics, the entire universe inexorably decays, and eventually, all stars will have burned out (cf. Wiki:
‘Heat death’). The world is therefore doomed to perish, because it is a fallen world. Humanity, too, is
doomed to perish because we are fallen creatures. There is no scientific basis for viewing the sensory world as
independent of abstract, Platonic laws. Matter could not even exist without them. Everything is governed by laws
and is extremely complex. Plato was more correct than he himself understood.
We know today much that Nietzsche did not know, including the understanding that the material world is secondary,
as neither time nor matter has existed eternally. According to the prevailing cosmological theory, maximum order
(negentropy) prevailed at the moment of creation. Subsequently, stars and galaxies emerged in conjunction with the
increase in entropy in the universe as a whole. In one version of the future, matter will be destroyed before the
“Big Rip,” when space-time itself is torn apart (cf. Wiki: ‘Entropy’; Wiki: ‘Big
Rip’).
Such is the fate of all being, which contradicts Nietzsche’s theory of the ontological priority of the
sensory world. Living in the 19th century, he was unaware of these cosmological discoveries, which largely affirm
the validity of Augustinian cosmology. It is important to note that Augustine rejects the Platonic view that only
the supersensible possesses genuine existence while the sensory world merely represents a shadow. According to his
metaphysics, worldly existence is authentic because it stems from God’s perfect being (ipsum esse). It
is only due to the Fall that the world has become corrupted. However, earthly things continue to exist because they
have retained much of the order (modus, species, ordo) that God originally bestowed upon them.
Therefore, the universe is God’s good creation, just like humanity. We can achieve a more complete existence
by drawing closer to God. The sensory world is not a shadowy realm; it is a good and genuinely existing one.
However, it continually struggles against decay, as confirmed by the principles of thermodynamics. This struggle
arises because the earthly realm is imperfect, unlike the perfect forms that exist in God’s mind. Nietzsche
conflates Christian theology with an extreme interpretation of Platonism.
11.
Nietzsche explicitly advocates for a phenomenological perspective, asserting that nothing matters except
phenomena (which does not negate the existence of an objective reality). While his views are often linked to
neo-Kantianism, he is more likely aligned with Husserl’s phenomenological idealism. A subjectivist viewpoint
posits that we construct our understanding of the world based on arbitrarily created linguistic narratives.
However, in reality, we discover the world and thus form an objective and accurate understanding that corresponds
to the categories inherent in external reality, including mathematical ones. We possess these categories innately
because we are part of the same reality, which aligns with Platonic epistemology.
Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith explains that the prevailing view today is scientific
realism. He notes that “[o]ne actual and reasonable aim of science is to give us accurate descriptions (and
other representations) of what reality is like. This project includes giving us accurate representations of aspects
of reality that are unobservable” (2003, p. 176). Scientific realism means applying empirical
methodology. Realism has triumphed, as we today have enormous knowledge about matter itself. Through experiments,
we can gain knowledge that transcends experience. Contrary to phenomenological and Kantian/Nietzschean philosophy,
we can acquire knowledge that does not derive from any mental experience of the phenomenon, such as knowledge about
electron spin and the curvature of space-time (cf. Winther, 2000).
Functionality is the essential aspect of any task, and to achieve this, we rely on rational thinking. Consider the
example of constructing a house: its primary purpose is to provide shelter. In this context, all other factors,
such as moral or aesthetic considerations, take a backseat. This underscores the dominant role of reason, which is
fundamental to functionality. Similarly, a person’s rational abilities define their perceived integrity. Even
if someone suffers from a stroke, loses their speech, or becomes blind and deaf, or even if they lose their
artistic abilities, they are still seen as fundamentally the same by others. However, if someone loses their
ability to reason, they are viewed as profoundly altered, essentially “gone” in the societal view.
Reason has a distinctly limited capacity, but it plays a crucial leadership role, much like the foreman on a
construction site. It is the central coordinator that oversees the entire operation. One cannot allow
“artistry,” “religiosity,” or “fantasy” to take control of the helm. However,
this has no bearing on “rationalism.” It does not imply that reason has all the answers. Nevertheless,
reason ensures that the other functions are able to reach their full potential. Organization is essential. A film,
for example, is not a product of rationalism, but rather a creative and emotional endeavour. Nevertheless, the film
producer and director must harness reason’s organizational capabilities in order to bring the project to
fruition. Otherwise, the emotional and artistic elements will not be effectively conveyed.
Science has demonstrated Nietzsche’s error: not everything is material; existence also encompasses an ideal
and transcendent aspect. Light waves travel through space, yet they cannot be perceived in that form. It is only
when they reach a detector and become photons (i.e., material entities) that we can experience light. Light exists
in a transcendent state that can only be described mathematically. It does not manifest as a sensory phenomenon but
rather as a mathematical function in a supersensible realm. Light exists outside of time; if one could travel along
a beam of light, one would experience time coming to a standstill. Thus, light is defined by its Platonic form in
addition to its worldly aspect, the photon. When the Platonic form “collapses,” light appears as a
material phenomenon. Remarkably, quantum physics embodies a Platonic framework.
12.
When evaluating the impact of Nietzsche’s writings, it becomes apparent that they had a profoundly
negative effect, leading to self-destructive extremism on both the right and the left. As the saying goes, “A
tree is judged by its fruit,” and unfortunately, the fruit borne by Nietzsche’s philosophical tree was
decidedly harmful. The portrayal of Nietzsche as a proponent of a worldly ideal is misleading; his ideas more
closely resemble naive mythological fantasies that stand in stark contrast to realistic, pragmatic thinking.
Living as a Nietzschean amounts to indulging in fantasy rather than being anchored in the tangible and realistic.
Nietzsche’s narratives, such as the tale of the Madman who declares that the earth has been unmoored from the
sun, and his references to the “blond beast” and warnings against Jews, veer into dangerous territory.
Similarly, his character Zarathustra’s proclamations fall into the realm of the absurd rather than
philosophical discourse and should not be taken seriously: “I love the forest. It is base to live in cities
where there are too many lustful people. Is it not better to fall into the hands of murderers than into the dreams
of a lustful woman?”
Philosophical inquiry should be grounded in sound reasoning and thoughtful consideration, much like a gardener who
carefully selects a fertile, well-lit spot before planting a tree. Just as good soil and ample sunlight are
essential for a tree’s growth, a robust scientific understanding and sound theology are vital for developing
a healthy, well-rounded worldview. In this environment, one’s intellectual and spiritual growth can flourish,
reaching upwards like a tree’s branches towards the divine light.
It’s time to address Beiner’s question regarding how Nietzsche, with his complex and controversial
ideas, became the most influential thinker of the 20th century. How can concepts like the eternal recurrence, the
Übermensch, herd morality, the will to power as the existential foundation, and the advocacy for a return to
aristocratic class structures, including slavery, be taken seriously? The contemporary individual often grapples
with a psychological condition known as puer aeternus, or the “eternal youth,” typified in
literary figures such as J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan, Antoine de
Saint-Exupéry’s The Little Prince, and Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray.
This existential rootlessness serves as the fertile ground from which Nietzsche’s philosophy emerges,
characterized by a lack of cultural and religious anchorage. Psychologist Marie-Louise von
Franz finds that such rootlessness provides fertile soil for totalitarian ideologies (cf. Winther,
2015).
The musician David Bowie (1947 – 2016) was a quintessential puer aeternus, at least he
understood himself in this way. In one of his song lyrics, he floats in a space capsule above the earth, but loses
contact and disappears into the void. He seems to have struggled with psychological problems throughout his life.
The fixation on youth and immortality was a constant theme in Bowie’s early career. In a BBC documentary from
1996, he reveals that he longed for an alternative reality. He wanted anything but what he came from (cf. Leorne,
2015). During his stay in the US, he struggled with drug addiction and suffered from paranoid delusions.
Nietzsche’s form of fascism then served as an anchor for his personality. He read Nietzsche and transformed
himself into the “thin white duke.” Bowie adopted the fascistoid ideal to hold together his fragile
personality. Symptomatically, Adolf Hitler became a favourite topic for discussion. In an interview with
Playboy in 1976, he says:
I’d love to enter politics. I will one day. I’d adore to be Prime Minister. And yes, I believe very strongly in Fascism. The only way we can speed up the sort of liberalism that’s hanging foul in the air at the moment is to speed up the progress of a rightwing, totally dictatorial tyranny and get it over as fast as possible. (ibid.)
Mental hospitals have always been populated by individuals who identify as Übermenschen. Patients have presented themselves as Napoleon or Alexander the Great, for example. Such identification serves to strengthen the fragile ego. This explains why the aristocratic Übermensch idea is such a temptation for the fragile psyche.
© Mats Winther (2020, English version: 2024 November.)
Abbreviations
AC: The Anti-Christ.
BGE: Beyond Good and Evil.
GS: The Gay Science.
GM: The Genealogy of Morals.
BT: The Birth of Tragedy.
TI: Twilight of the Idols.
WP: The Will to Power.
References
Aschheim, S. (1992). The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990. University of California Press.
Augustine, St. The City of God. (Dodds) (here)
Beiner, R. (2018). Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
‘Big Rip’. Wikipedia. (here)
Bloom, A. (1987). The Closing of the American Mind. Simon & Schuster.
Bull, M. (2011). Anti-Nietzsche. Verso.
‘Cambrian explosion’. Wikipedia. (here)
Dawkins, R. (2016). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
Dimuro, G. (2019). ‘The Habsburg Jaw And The Cost Of Royal Inbreeding’. ATI. (here)
‘Empire of the Ants’ (David Attenborough). BBC. (here)
‘Entropy’. Wikipedia. (here)
‘Fine-tuned universe’. Wikipedia. (here)
‘Fragments of Heraclitus’. Wikisource. (here)
Gemes, K. & Richardson, J. (eds.) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche. Oxford University
Press.
‘Germania (city)’. Wikipedia. (here)
Gimbel, S. (2024). ‘It Ain’t Necessarily So: Ludwig Boltzmann’s Darwinian Notion of
Entropy’. Entropy 2024, 26(3), 238. (here)
Glover, J. (1999). Humanity: a moral history of the twentieth century. Pimlico.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. The University
of Chicago Press.
Harding, C. (2024). ‘Julius Evola: the far-Right’s favourite philosopher – The
‘superfascist’ is radicalising a new generation’. UnHerd. (here)
‘Heat death of the universe’. Wikipedia. (here)
Heidegger, M. (2000) (Fried/Polt transl.). Introduction to Metaphysics. Yale University Press.
‘Helmuth Nyborg’. Wikipedia. (here)
Jennings Howard, V. L. (1992). ‘Nietzsche and Heraclitus’. Louisiana State University.
(here)
Kirk, G. S. & Raven, J. E. (1977). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History
with a Selection of Texts. Cambridge University Press.
Kirk, R. (1996). Redeeming the Time. Isi Books.
Leorne, A. (2015). ‘Dear Dr. Freud – David Bowie Hits the Couch: A psychoanalytic
approach to some of his personae’ in David Bowie: Critical Perspectives (2015). Devereux,
Dillane, Power (eds.). Routledge.
Levine, P. (1995). Nietzsche and the Modern Crisis of the Humanities. State University of New York
Press.
Linden, S. van der (2011). ‘The Science Behind Dreaming’. Scientific American (July 26, 2011)
(here)
Nietzsche, F. W. ‘Books by Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm’. Project Gutenberg.
(here)
---------- (1974) (Kaufmann, transl.). The Gay Science. Random House.
‘New Right’. Wikipedia. (here)
‘Pan (god)’. Wikipedia. (here)
Perkins, R. (1977). ‘Preliminary Analysis of the Aphorism and Its Precursors’.
Nietzsche-Studien 6: 205-39.
Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. Routledge.
Platon. Gorgias. Project Gutenberg (here) äv. Perseus Digital Library. (here)
‘Reciprocal altruism’. Wikipedia. (here)
Rushton, J. P. (2000). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (2nd Special Abridged
Edition). Charles Darwin Research Institute. (here)
Winther, M. (2000). ‘Critique of Neo-Hegelianism’. (here)
----------- (2015). ‘The Puer Aeternus – underminer of
civilization’. (here)
----------- (2018). ‘Critique of Jordan B. Peterson’s
Neo-Hegelian philosophy’. (here)
----------- (2019). ‘Om Europas självmord och tribalismens återkomst’.
(here)
----------- (2020). ‘Den Fjärde Politiska Teorin – en kritik av
Alexander Dugins postmoderna traditionalism’. (here)
See also:
Helanterä, H. (2009). ‘Do unicolonial wood ants favor kin?’. Journal of Biology, 2009; 8(6): 56.
(here)
Winther, M. (2011). ‘Understanding European psychology: about European psychology – its
roots in the interiority of Christian Middle Ages’. (here)
