--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "kshonan88" <kshonan88@y...>
wrote:
> To Nietzsche, Great Crimes against Humanity held no shame;
>
> "Crime does not sully",
> [ib., 740]
>
> On a personal level Nietzsche thought that we should "depise
> ourselves" if we had not the "strength to kill a man".
> [ib.,]
>
Seems a fairly big leap to go from the individual acts Nietzsche
refers to in this passage to mass murder on an industrial sized
scale. You neglect to add that he also states that the
criminal/rebel can be a "miserable and contemptible man" just that
there is nothing contemptible in revolt per se if it is revolt
against "something in our society against which war ought to be
waged." Nietzsche wishes to remove moral contempt from forms of
punsihment as it only causes indignity, but this does not equate
with a blanket acceptance of all criminal acts. He nonetheless still
sees a need to excise certain criminals if they belong to "the race
of criminals" (not to be understood in a biological sense of course)
and are not capable of making peace with society. In the former
case, "one should make war on him even before he has committed any
hostile act." So even if we do extrapolate such themes to
encompass 'great crimes against humanity' as well as individual acts
it is certain that Nietzsche would still see some as necessary of
suppression and/or excision. Of course it is up to debate whether
Nietzsche would have seen Hitler as someone deserving of such
excision, or whether the Jews should be those "one should make war
on him even before he has committed any hostile act." But given
Nietzsche's dislike of nationalism, mass movements and anti-semites
I am fairly sure what side he would have ended up on.
"No, we do not love humanity; but on the other hand we are not
nearly 'German' enough, in the sense in which the word 'German' [is
used] to advocate nationalism and racial hatred and to be able to
take pleasure in the national scabies of the heart and blood
poisoning with which European peoples nowadays delimit and barricade
themselves against each other as if with quarantines. For that we
are too uninhibited, too malicious, too spoiled, also too well-
informed, too 'well-travelled': we far prefer to live on the
mountains, apart, 'untimely,' in past or future centuries...We who
are homeless are too diverse and racially mixed in our descent,
as 'modern men,' and consequently we are not inclined to particpate
in the mendacious racial self-admiration and obscenity that parades
in Germany today...In a word - and let this be our word of honour -
we are 'good Europeans,' the rich heirs of millennia of European
spirit, with too many provisions but also too many obligations. GS377