Thank you for your interest.
I urge that N.'s BGE, 251 be read more carefully; quote -
"That the Jews could, if they wanted - or if they were
compelled, as the anti-Semites seem to want - even now predominate,
indeed quite literally rule over Europe, is certain; that they are
not planning and working towards that is equally certain. In the
meantime they are, rather, wanting and wishing, even with some
importunity, to be absorbed and assimilated by and into Europe, they
are longing to be finally settled, permitted, respected somewhere
and to put an end to the nomadic life, to the 'Wandering Jew' -; one
ought to pay heed to this inclination and impulse (which is perhaps
even a sign that the Jewish instincts are becoming milder) and go
out to meet it: for which it would perhaps be a good idea to eject
the anti-Semitic ranters from the country. Go out to meet it with
all caution, with selectivity; much as the English nobility do. It
is plain that the stronger and already more firmly formed types of
the new Germanism could enter into relations with them with the
least hesitation..."
Note that the jews he wants to introduce inside are ones whose
instincts have already become milder... against which now he can
blend the "firmer" German; meaning he aims at the domination of the
latter and pressing the services of the former. N. is very clever,
and noble might I add.
"Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial
weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones
help to advance it." [HATH, 224]
This is N.'s idea.
He continues there,
"There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any
physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. ...the
one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see
deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the
famous theory of the survival of the fittest1 does not seem to me to
be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of
strengthening of a man or of a race. Rather, two things must
coincide: first of all, stable power must increase through minds
bound in faith and communal feeling; and secondly, it must be
possible to attain higher goals when degenerating natures partially
weaken or wound the stable power; it is precisely the weaker nature,
as the more delicate and free, that makes progress possible at all.
If a people starts to crumble and grow weak at some one place, but
is still strong and healthy in general, it can accept being infected
with something new, and can incorporate it to its advantage. The
task of education is to make the individual so firm and sure that,
as a whole being, he can no longer be diverted from his path."
The selective introduction of the mildest jews was to act like a
spurring innoculant... While N. says there, "but is still strong and
healthy in general, it can accept being infected with something new,
and can incorporate it to its advantage", this is the kind of
concern he showed on Germany and the German digestion. Only
the "firm" German was to face this experimental blending, so that he
could incorporate and subjugate all lesser powers and resources
(jews) to his advantage.
In WTP, 928, he writes,
"Greatness of character does not consist in not possessing these
affects - on the contrary, one possesses them to the highest degree -
but "in having them under control".
He also said, the multifarious and the synthetic man (who could
press into service all the multifarious drives without eliminating
them) was the great/wise man. He implied such was analogous to the
state.
Nietzsche constantly deploys perfect irony throughout his writings
and it is with this note in mind, that we must read him. In Daybreak
205, for example, he places the Jews of the Israel and our European
people side by side, which on a first reading seems in favour
and 'praise' of the Jews. Yet when you read that particular passage
in light of his previous thoughts from the same work - 175 and 198,
it will be understood that the thrust of this whole ironic passage
205 (as the last lines show) is really to raise the Europeans off
negative ressentiment. Nietzsche's general motto, his principle put
simply [particularly with regard to his position on the Jewish
issue], is "By Doing, we Forego." Elevation requires 'light feet',
and light feet blooms from slaying the spirit of gravity, rising
above the froth of ressentiment...
To put this matter further in even more clarity.
In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche writes,
"The question: what is the value of this or that table of values
and "morals"? should be viewed from the most divers perspectives;
for the problem "value for what?" cannot be examined too subtly.
Something, for example, that possessed obvious value in relation to
the longest possible survival of a race (or to the enhancement of
its power of adaptation to a particular climate or to the
reservation of the greatest number) would by no means possess the
same value if it were a question, for instance, of producing a
stronger type. The well-being of the few are opposite viewpoints of
value: to consider the former a priori of higher value may be left
to the naïveté of English biologists.—" [GM, 1, 17]
Nietzsche differentiates in rank-order of the survival value of one
race's capacity with another's of producing a stronger type. He pits
Judea vs. Rome...
There is no doubt on what side Nietzsche stood.
I think a more interesting and thought-worthy difference between N.
and Evola would be on the issue of the Rennaissance. N. hailed it,
while Evola saw it as unbridled Dionysian excess. I however feel,
that is because what the word Dionysian meant to the both of them
was quite different.
Regards.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Those who have read 'Three Aspects of the Jewish Problem' should
see
> what Nietzsche's views on Jews and Evola's have in common and what
> distinguishes them.
>
> It has been assumed that what Evola calls the 'Jewish soul', or
more
> exactly the 'Jewish forma mentis', is closely akin to
the 'mentality
> of slave' which was attributed by Nietzsche to the Jewish people,
> and, of course, this is not untrue, it being understood that,
> although it is blatant in the religious context, it manifests
itself
> on all plans, on the racial one, to start with : "(...) insofar as
> the sense of 'transgression' and 'sin' (almost completely foreign
to
> Aryans) is inborn to Semites and is reflected in a typical way in
the
> Old Testament, so far also what is typical of Semitic people in
> general, closely linked to the types of matriarchal civilisations
> (...), but foreign to patriarchal Aryan societies, is the pathos
of
> the 'confession of sins' and of their remission" (p.11). On this
> basis, it is clear that, as you have pointed out, it is a mistake
to
> fight Jewish influence on the religious level only ; Nietzsche
goes
> so far as to call it a trap : "To address the Jewish problem, one
> must move and take action from an e-Moral realm, and not allow
> oneself to fall into the trap of their sin/evil moralizing as anti-
> Semitism does". Does he consider religious anti-Semitism as a form
> of 'crude anti-Semitism'? However this may be, he agrees with
Evola
> that not all forms of anti-Semitism serve the cause of Europe, of
Pan-
> Europe (considering Nietzsche's dyonisianism, is there a pun
here?),
> a common place watchword at that time, which Evola too used
> in 'Heidnischer Imperialismus' ; yet, Evola is more specific when
it
> comes to determine the kind of anti-Semitism which harms the
> interests of the 'Aryan' : the one which is based on a biological
> racism, and which, as such, is corrupted by the evil it claims to
> fight. In that sense, "all those anti-Semites who want to foil
this
> plan and hasten the disintegration of Germany/Europe" testify to a
> Jewish forma mentis.
>
> While agreeing to a certain extent on the racial characteristics
of
> the Jew, Evola and Nietzsche disagree clearly on the means of
> containing and neutralising Jewish influence in European
> civilisation. Unlike Evola, Nietzsche considers that the Jews is
a
> superior stock which could increase the intellectual level of the
> average European by means of intermarriage. Nothing could be
further
> than that consideration from Evola's standpoint, who upholds the
> implementation of prophylactic measures as a means to defend the
race
> of the body against any unfavourable racial mixing, and from
> Hitler's, who, as recalled by Evola in 'Three Aspects of the
Jewish
> Problem', thought that the Jews, recognising the fundamental value
of
> blood and race as creators of true civilisation, have proceeded
to a
> systematic project of contamination of the non-Jewish races, and
> particularly of the Germanic race, in order to dissipate the last
> strains of pure blood. Interestingly enough, Nietzsche takes it
that
> the Jews are the "purest race in Europe"and that the Germans
are "a
> people made up of the most extraordinary mixing and mingling of
> races", reverting the true data : most racialists agree that the
> German people is made of six different racial types, more or less
> mixed, and, rather less than more until the end of the Middle
Ages,
> and scientific research have shown that the Bible is right in
stating
> that, ethnically, and originally, very different bloods have
flowed
> into the Jewish people (see
> http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id16.html )