6 ms·

Its a shame that you're getting down voted to nothing because his racism wasn't simply a personal flaw, it was endemic to his whole thought process. Mencken wa

Its a shame that you're getting down voted to nothing because his racism wasn't simply a personal flaw, it was endemic to his whole thought process. Mencken was an avowed Nietzschean, who published a volume on his philosphy and added forwards to english translations to the Anti-Christ (and maybe more). Its also worth pointing out that his personal interpretation of Nietsche's work was focused especially on the "superman" theory, and more specifically on the idea that there are those who are fit to rule and those who aren't. The fact that this was published in the Weekly Standard, without mention of his racism, shouldn't be surprising.

yesenadam 9y ago
"A volume"? The very first book on Nietzsche published in English, no less, I believe. (1907) I read it, it's very good. He says in several places (to paraphrase) "This idea of Nietzsche's is absolutely insane." - something no scholar of Nietzsche comes within a mile of doing nowadays. Your whole post sounds like a third-hand report. Have you read his writings on American democracy? He couldn't be more scathing about the people who in fact do rule. "It was Americans who invented the curious doctrine that there is a body of doctrine in every department of thought that every good citizen is in duty bound to accept and cherish; it was Americans who invented the right-thinker. … In the face of this singular passion for conformity, this dread of novelty and originality, it is obvious that the man of vigorous mind and stout convictions is gradually shouldered out of public life. He may slide into office once or twice, but soon or late he is bound to be held up, examined and incontinently kicked out. This leaves the field to the intellectual jelly-fish and inner tubes." – Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, 26/7/1920 Incidentally, have you read Anti-Christ? I doubt it. It's not "the Anti-Christ" (i.e. the devil) but Anti-Christ (i.e. something written against, arguing against Jesus) - which it's not, actually. I don't think it says a single word against Jesus, of whom Nietzsche seems very fond - it's against the church and priests and their corruption of the original christian message. I thought it made a lot of sense. (As do all of Nietzsche's books - well ok, parts of Ecce Homo sound loony) Reading you again.. you're explaining Mencken's supposed racism by that he was a Nietzschean? Hmm. I don't see the connection. Oh, is it a Nazi-Nietzsche connection? Well, read Nietzsche - no trace of racism. He was embarrassed by German nationalism, never said anything positive about it or Germany, was far fonder of French writers, was more likely to say something against Germans than against Jews. And he thought Emerson was the greatest writer of the 19th C - about whom the worst Nietzsche could say was that he was too influenced by German thought. Actually Emerson wrote a lot of Nietzsche-sounding anti-democratic-sounding stuff, a lot more than Nietzsche did. Nietzsche wasn't very political at all, hardly wrote about it. edit: Could downvoters please explain why? thank you.
- dtornabene 9y ago
  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.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    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.

yesenadam 9y ago

"A volume"? The very first book on Nietzsche published in English, no less, I believe. (1907) I read it, it's very good. He says in several places (to paraphrase) "This idea of Nietzsche's is absolutely insane." - something no scholar of Nietzsche comes within a mile of doing nowadays. Your whole post sounds like a third-hand report. Have you read his writings on American democracy? He couldn't be more scathing about the people who in fact do rule. "It was Americans who invented the curious doctrine that there is a body of doctrine in every department of thought that every good citizen is in duty bound to accept and cherish; it was Americans who invented the right-thinker. … In the face of this singular passion for conformity, this dread of novelty and originality, it is obvious that the man of vigorous mind and stout convictions is gradually shouldered out of public life. He may slide into office once or twice, but soon or late he is bound to be held up, examined and incontinently kicked out. This leaves the field to the intellectual jelly-fish and inner tubes." – Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, 26/7/1920 Incidentally, have you read Anti-Christ? I doubt it. It's not "the Anti-Christ" (i.e. the devil) but Anti-Christ (i.e. something written against, arguing against Jesus) - which it's not, actually. I don't think it says a single word against Jesus, of whom Nietzsche seems very fond - it's against the church and priests and their corruption of the original christian message. I thought it made a lot of sense. (As do all of Nietzsche's books - well ok, parts of Ecce Homo sound loony) Reading you again.. you're explaining Mencken's supposed racism by that he was a Nietzschean? Hmm. I don't see the connection. Oh, is it a Nazi-Nietzsche connection? Well, read Nietzsche - no trace of racism. He was embarrassed by German nationalism, never said anything positive about it or Germany, was far fonder of French writers, was more likely to say something against Germans than against Jews. And he thought Emerson was the greatest writer of the 19th C - about whom the worst Nietzsche could say was that he was too influenced by German thought. Actually Emerson wrote a lot of Nietzsche-sounding anti-democratic-sounding stuff, a lot more than Nietzsche did. Nietzsche wasn't very political at all, hardly wrote about it. edit: Could downvoters please explain why? thank you.

dtornabene 9y ago
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.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  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.