This author doesn't understand Nietzsche very well. Nietzsche's main point is that pain and suffering become second-order concerns to someone who is committed t

This author doesn't understand Nietzsche very well. Nietzsche's main point is that pain and suffering become second-order concerns to someone who is committed to legislating their life-experience rather than acquiesing to social forces which put pressure on individuals to exchange the magnitude of their self-realization for various publicly admissable representations. Nietzshe's respect for Napoleon Bonaparte pivots on how contra-vening his ambitions were to the growing (and ultimately victorous) trend of rationalization and democratizing in European social and political life, politicians and solders were no longer elevated figures or servants of some individual sovereignty but instead served some 'social contract' or other (e.g. the U.S. military takes an oath to defend the constitution, not a specific individual or group). You sorta get the same messaging in the political theory of Carl Schmitt in his critique of liberal democratic legal orders, that we'd be better off living with explicit political sovereigns since though we do so anyway implicitly despite claiming rule of law Attempting to find existential meaning in suffering is apart of Nietzsche's critique of Christian and Secular society in European culture (they're the same thing to him just as theology and political science are the same thing to Schmitt). Edit: Nietzsche isn't interested in some founder who "rolled up his sleeves", "took risks", and ground out a successful exit acquisition (never mind Nietzsche's disdain for finance and business as a domain for self-realization), he's looking for people who aren't concerned about suffering because their desire to self-realize is too tremendous to give a damn about physical pain or social ostracization (Napoleon laid waste to Europe, never once to stopped to think about it) and too tremendous to make sense to any current ideological framework as well (which tend to be populist on some level). In truth, Nietzsche doesn't like modern liberals or modern conservatives, because in his view both mask their desires behind populist appeals (whether that be to "reason" or "justice" or "fairness"). Human desire is what is "Beyond Good and Evil", but humans collectively engage in limiting self-realization of others and his "Genealogy of Morals" is an attempt at the history of this activity from the origins of society down to the malaise of modern democratic institutions and cultures If you follow these ideas, then understanding the work of Michel Foucault will get a lot easier since he takes a different spin on the history of legislating others in the myriad ways available to humans, well beyond mere resort to "the law". What's interesting is that Foucault is regarded as the Godfather of Social Justice in some circles but he was much more Nietzschean and supported the Iranian Revolution as a protest against forces of moderniy that have been rationalizing greater and greater facets of living since the 19th century (and which I would has continued up to the very nature of social media)