Chapter 1
Reading Nietzsche in an Age of Resurgent Fascism
The sort of unqualified and utterly unsuitable people who may one day come to invoke my authority is a thought that fills me with dread.
āFriedrich Nietzsche
As is well known, the intellectual left has found much to its liking in the philosophies of ultraright thinkers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt.1 Why this is so is hardly obvious, and one cannot help wondering about where one should look for the full story on this curious feature of intellectual life in recent decades. Whether this is something that has an intraintellectual explanation or whether it has a kind of āsociology of knowledgeā explanation is not something I will attempt to pursue here. Iām only saying it merits further reflection. But what I will pursue in the following discussion (and I will do something similar in the next chapter) is a reexamination of one of these thinkers whom many of us have read and been excited by in our youth, asking whether we can any longer afford to read him while filtering out the ultraright dimensions of his thought. Itās all too easy to read Nietzsche, appreciating the stuff one likes while taking with a grain of salt all the unpleasant stuff that doesnāt suit contemporary tastes. But if the far right is making a comeback today (which I believe it is), then this starts to look like an intolerable intellectual luxury.
***
I first started reading Nietzsche around 1973. By some unaccountable Nietzsche-style fatality, I stumbled on a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the stacks at McGill University. I was an enthusiast right from the start. (What better antidote to growing up amid the banality and conformism of suburban life in North America?) Occasionally, one would come across critics highlighting the protofascist dimensions of Nietzscheās thought.2 There may be scary lines scattered throughout his works. But on the whole, Nietzsche seemed to present himself asāto borrow Tracy Strongās phraseāāa voice for liberation.ā3
There is a repellent though famous photograph (by Heinrich Hoffmann) that we contemporary readers of Nietzsche must confront. It features Hitler in 1934 at the Nietzsche Archives in Weimar.4 No one who respects the mind or literary genius of Nietzsche will find it easy to look at that horrible image. But we have to be resolute in asking ourselves, Why was Hitler motivated to stage the taking of that photograph? It was a deliberate act of statecraft,5 and whether or not Nietzsche would have welcomed being enlisted in those ideological purposes (it is a virtual certainty that it would have caused him significant pain), he was nonetheless complicit in the Hitlerite appropriation of his legacy because there were things in his oeuvre that invited that appropriation and that made it attractive for Hitler to lay claim to him just as Lenin and Stalin had laid claim to Marx. And take note: the Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche didnāt end with Hitler. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, an authority on Aryan cults and āesoteric Nazism,ā writes that āThe Anti-Christ, Nietzscheās trenchant rejection of Christianity written in 1888, is now current as an anti-Christian manifesto among white power activists in America and Europe.ā6
Similarly, we need to think hardheadedly and concretely about exactly what Nietzsche may have intended when he spoke, both in Beyond Good and Evil (Ā§ 208) and in Ecce Homo (āWhy I Am a Destiny,ā Ā§ 1), about the coming age of groĪ²e Politik and about himself as the prophet of groĪ²e Politik.7 Apart from emphasizing its Pan-European character and its not being limited to petty-nationalistic horizons, Nietzsche never really elaborated what this kind of politics would look like in concrete terms. Clearly, the implication was that it was a kind of imperial political project, gesturing back to glory-oriented empires of the past.8 In other words, this was a blank check, and a distinctly dangerous one, given the projects of the politics of empire that were (as he predicted) to appear on the scene a few short decades later. When Nietzsche, in Twilight of the Idols (āSkirmishes of an Untimely Man,ā Ā§ 39), affirms the need for cultural norms that are āanti-liberal to the point of malice,ā he means exactly what he says. When Nietzsche wrote in Ā§ 251 of Beyond Good and Evil that what defines the European problem as he understands it (āwhat is serious for meā) is āthe cultivation of a new caste to rule over Europe,ā he really meant ācasteā (Kaste), he really meant āruleā (regierenden), and he really meant āEurope.ā These were not metaphors for something āspiritual.ā This is politically innocent only on the assumption that Nietzsche would never be read by people who took him at his word. We surely know by now that this assumption is untenable.
Hans-Georg Gadamer once wrote, āI am in favor of a government and politics that would allow for mutual understanding and the freedom of all. . . . [This] has been self-evident to any European since the French Revolution, since Hegel and Kant.ā9 This statement is in fact quite false (and Gadamer should have known that it was false). The reality is that there has been in Europe a long succession of radical thinkers who rejected the liberal egalitarianism of the French Revolution root and branch. (Gadamer ought to have known this because his own philosophical mentor, Martin Heidegger, was one of these radical thinkers and also because he lived for twelve horrendous years under a regime that expressed the same ideological rejection.10) Almost certainly the most important of these philosophers associated with the tradition of resolute repudiation of liberal modernity in all its moral, political, and cultural dimensions is Friedrich Nietzsche. Generations of readers of Nietzsche have never failed to find ways to ālaunderā or āsanitizeā or at least take the edge off his hatred of freedom and equality as interpreted by modernity. Reading Nietzsche as benign or even as emancipatory would be tolerable if we could be assured that we wouldnāt face a second attempt at putting Nietzschean extremism into practice with extremely malevolent consequences for the world. But the recent and unexpected rise of the populist far right tells us, on the contrary, that we must fear and be vigilant about (to quote Conor Cruise OāBrien again) āwhat his messages might effect when they reached minds which were as bold in action as he was bold in thought.ā
Julius Evolaās Nietzsche
I am no man, I am dynamite.
āFriedrich Nietzsche11
When a representative of the twentieth-century European far right such as Julius Evola reads Nietzsche, what does he absorb as the pertinent political-cultural message? In the very first reference to Nietzsche in Ride the Tiger, Evola cites him as āa great precursor.ā12 Nietzsche was right that what was promised by bourgeois civilization is a complete fraud: it delivers āa soulless, mechanistic, and purely earthly civilizationā that is in its āterminal state.ā13 The civilizational ends privileged by liberalism and democracy are brought to fruition by socialismānamely, an era of the last man accurately depicted by Nietzsche: āa human integrity traded for that which might suit socialized cattle.ā14 In common with Nietzsche, Evolaās view is that the making available of āa plentiful, easy, and comfortable existenceā (the ideal of life shared between Marxism and Western liberalism) counts for nothing: āHegel rightly wrote that the epochs of material well-being are blank pages in the history book.ā15 āTrue leaders do not exist todayā because, as Nietzsche rightly perceived, the supposed ruling class is in fact dedicated to āthe virtues of the serfs.ā16 The core problem is that living in a world governed by āthe regime of the massesā (the regime of āthe mediocre soulā), where one ought to have hierarchies of ārank and spiritual superiority,ā one instead has merely hierarchies defined by technical expertise.17 This, for Evola, constitutes āthe absurdity of modern existence,ā18 although exactly how fascism is meant to supply an antidote to this absurdity remains a mystery. āThe general situation characterized by Nietzsche remains: āThe struggle for supremacy amidst conditions that are worth nothing: this civilization of great cities, newspapers, fever, uselessness.āā19 Knowing oneself to be inhabiting a civilization that is worthless, the Nietzschean aristocrat in a society of slaves āfeels himself belonging to a different humanity and recognizes the desert around himself.ā20 To be sure, Evola regards Nietzscheās vitalism as a āpseudosolutionā and suggests that Nietzscheās failure to move from immanence to transcendence āgenerates a higher voltage than the circuit can sustain,ā quoting an 1881 letter from Nietzsche to Peter Gast in which Nietzsche describes himself as āone of those machines that might explode.ā21 In any case, the post-1789 world is collapsing precipitously, and insofar as one can contribute to speeding up rather than postponing its demise, anything that might āprop it up and prolong its existence artificiallyā should be avoided.22
We know that Nietzsche longed for ābarbarians of the twentieth century.ā Would he have hoped to inspire, for instance, far-right terrorists in the 1970s? Perhaps not. But we know that Nietzscheās votary, Julius Evola, was perfectly happy performing the role of a guru for terrorists: āYoung postwar neo-fascists sat at Evolaās feet to hear this oracle of aristocratic values and war with modernity.ā Inspired by Evolaās āphilosophy of total war,ā these disciples of Nietzscheās disciple āunleashed a surge of black terrorism in Italy.ā23 The thought by which Nietzsche was āfilled with dreadā (namely, vulgar Nietzscheanism) was not an idle one.
The Challenge of Nietzsche
How do we respond, humanly speaking, to a thinker who simply doesnāt believe in human dignity or the equal rights of all human beings? Who self-consciously denounces the whole moral universe conjured up by the French Revolution and believes that it didnāt secure a higher status for humanity but on the contrary incalculably diminished our stature? Who believes that in order to redeem such a thing as human dignity, we need to strive for something far beyond our current humanity, and in order to do that, need to restore the conceptions of radical hierarchy that were banished by the French Revolution and the whole postāFrench Revolution moral universe? We would barely know what to make of such a creatureāwe wouldnāt really be able to comprehend him even if he were staring us in the face! Stranger still, imagine that such a thinker went on to become one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century and was championed to a very large extent by intellectuals of the left! Bizarre! Yet I am not sketching some hypothetical philosopher on Mars; this is Friedrich Nietzsche, who has influenced and shaped contemporary culture and intellectual life to a staggering degree. What do we make of all this?
A key aspect of Nietzscheās appeal (as a rhetorician, one might say, rather than as a thinker per se) is how generative he is, both with respect to new styles and with respect to provocative content, how protean he isāthe sheer abundance in his writing and in his intellectual activity. Thereās something for everyone! Something for every taste, as it were. Thereās Nietzsche, the philosopher who demolishes the whole history of metaphysics. Thereās Nietzsche, the ruthless debunker of religion and moralism. Thereās Nietzsche, the affirmer of the body, severely challenging the privileging of mind or spirit going back to Plato. Thereās Nietzsche, the prophet of the collapse of the cultural hollowness of modernity. And so on. Thereās a radical pluralism in Nietzscheās mode of thought that completely outflanks or trumps any preceding mode of intellectual pluralism.
On the other hand, let us recall the memorable dictum from Martin Heideggerās lectures on Nietzsche: āEach thinker thinks only one single thought.ā24 Thatās what makes them great thinkers. I truly believe that Heidegger was right about that. (If we were to follow Isaiah Berlinās advice to orient theory toward pluralistic foxes rather than monistic hedgehogs, we would ultimately be left with no theory canon at all.) And if itās true, it must be true of Nietzsche as well (especially since Heidegger formulated his principle with Nietzsche specifically in mind). So we must ask, What is the singular philosophical impulse in Nietzsche amid what looks like unbounded pluralism? Yet searching for a ātrueā Nietzsche or an āessentialā Nietzsche (which I think we must do) looks as if it canāt possibly be squared with Nietzscheās own emphasis on resisting singular truths or singular essences. I will treat Nietzscheās pluralism as a rhetoric (a highly effective rhetoric!) and attempt to spell out one possible reading of the āessenceā of Nietzscheās intellectual concerns. What Iāll suggest is that all of Nietzscheās literary virtuosityāwhich is undeniable, which seduces its readers and was intended to seduce themāis in the service of this essential core commitment.
Consider a passage on Nietzsche penned by Thomas Mann that I basically endorse:
Much as his largely aphoristic work glitters in a thousand colored facets, many as are the surface contradictions that can be demonstrated in his booksāhe was from the start a coherent whole, remained always the same. In the writings of the youthful professorāthe Thoughts Out of Season, The Birth of Tragedy, and the 1873 treatise The Philosopherāare to be found more than the seeds of his later dogmas, the tidings he was to hurl down from his mountaintop. More than seeds because these dogmasāwhich in his opinion were glad tidingsāwere already contained in perfect and finished form in those works. What changed was solely the accentuation, the pitch, the gestures. These grew steadily more frantic, shriller, more grotesque and terrible. . . . [W]e cannot sufficiently stress the complete unity and coherence of Nietzscheās life works.25
Geoff Waite quotes a letter from Nietzsche to Paul Deussen dated January 3, 1888, in which Nietzsche acknowledges that there is a ācenterā to his thought, a āgreat passion in the service of which I live.ā26 That may seem like stating the obviousāhow could Nietzsche have sustained his gargantuan literary output if that werenāt the case?āyet there are legions of Nietzscheās readers who refuse to believe it. Waiteās view, for which I have much sympathy, is that this unspecified center is esoteric and that much of what Nietzscheās readers have always associated with him is merely exoteric rhetoric intended to seduce, dupe, and ultimately hijack those readers. Let me share my own proposal with respect to what this one central, animating Nietzschean idea might be: Western civilization is going down the toilet because of too much emphasis on truth and rationality and too much emphasis on equal human dignity.
***
The initial thought on which my presentation of Nietzsche is founded is that Nietzscheās positive philosophy is all nonsense or lunacy: Ćbermenschen, will to power, eternal recurrence of the same, a return to ancien rĆ©gimeātype European aristocracy. Itās impossible to take any of that seriously. Those wild ideas are simply the e...