I've read everything Nietzsche published in his lifetime, plus a dozen or more volumes of secondary literature, plus a bit of review of the secondary literature. If you want a balanced interpretation (but brief) read the Nietzsche chapter of Sheldon Wolins "Politics and Vision", which details precisely how anti-democratic and, yes, racist (and specifically his garden variety anti-semitism), Nietzsche actually was, it also details the political aspects of his philosophy, specifically the totalitiarian aspects of which, again there is quite a bit.
>> Well, read Nietzsche - no trace of racism
Google might help you here my friend, you can literally google it.
Saying that Nietzsche was ....fond... of Jesus is ....odd, I'll just leave it at that. As far as Mencken goes I don't "explain" his racism as being a consequence of his Nietzsheanism, simply that the two are complementary.
Ok sorry, initially I got the impression you were just repeating what you had read other people say about Mencken. And there was the unfortunate way you said it was a shame that comment was downvoted, the kind of crude, unsubstantiated, vitriolic one-liner always voted down on here, hate/poison in place of thought.
Addressing your first comment, I'm not sure what exactly it means by saying that Mencken's "personal interpretation was focused especially" on something, it's a vague expression. Perhaps it was, but claiming to be "pointing it out" is begging the question.
I don't think I've heard of the Weekly Standard, so that any particular thing is published in it or not isn't surprising to me. Why it isn't surprising to you, went without saying.
As did why my saying Nietzsche that was fond of Jesus was odd. I didn't say that anyway, I said he "seems" (i.e. seems to me) "very fond of Jesus". Like I said, one might expect the book to be filled with criticism of Jesus, but I don't recall a single thing against Jesus in the entire book. It's all about the perversion of Jesus' teachings by priests and the church. But it's been maybe 10 years since I last read it, I could be wrong about that.
Also where to read about racism in Nietzsche went without saying. There's people saying every possible thing about Nietzsche on the internet, perhaps you could have given a link or 2, instead of being so condescending.
I haven't read that Sheldon Wolin book, will have a look at it tomorrow, thanks. But I think claiming anything is a "balanced interpretation" of anything is odd, naïve rather; I don't know what that could mean except you agree with it.
Also I don't know what you mean exactly by saying Mencken's racism is complementary to/with his Nietzscheanism.
Less vague hinting and assuming, more spelling things out explicitly, would be great, thanks.
> the kind of crude, unsubstantiated, vitriolic one-liner always voted down on here, hate/poison in place of thought.
Dramatic much? Even an apologist for Mencken such as yourself should be able to see the value in having a debate about his views on race. Not sure why you're getting so personally offended and uppity about this. Nor am I sure why you pre-fix all of your responses by accusing the parent of not having read anything, based on nothing but your general intuition.
>> Well, read Nietzsche - no trace of racism
Google might help you here my friend, you can literally google it.
Saying that Nietzsche was ....fond... of Jesus is ....odd, I'll just leave it at that. As far as Mencken goes I don't "explain" his racism as being a consequence of his Nietzsheanism, simply that the two are complementary.