Date: 10 Feb 1999 06:56:00 +0200
From: I-AFD_2-AT-anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA)
Subject: Re: Nietzsche (was Re: baby food)


Hi,

I think YOU cannot understand this (flame?!) without the Mail of Unleesh
before:....

> Hey, some smoke! Could be a flame war beginning? Let's squirt some
> kerosene on it...
>
> Nico MYOWNA wrote:
> > There is a interrelation between Nietzsches ideas and the interpretation
> > of Nietzsche by Nazi trends. I speak about a *real* interrelation in our
> > history between Nietzsches work and Nazi-ism *and not* about Nietzsche
> > himself, his motives or ideas.
>
> No one in this thread has denied that Nietzsche has been used by
> fascists. I believe the controversy is over the extent to which
> Nietzsche can be faulted for this.

On the other hand have *nobody* wrote about Nietzsche some "father of Nazi- 
ism". Nevertheless have other list-members quoted my words with the  
reproach that I have wrote that Nietzsche should be the father of Nazi- 
ism.
>
> > On the other hand have there been an anarchist interpretation of Nietzsche
> > during the years 1918 and 1933 (with nearly the same arguments of your
> > last statement about the "Trans-man" and the flux of his will-to-power).
> > Both have indeed nothing to do with Nietzsche....
>
> Your language is careless here. You're making the absurd statement that
> an interpretation of N has nothing to do with N. Perhaps you mean that N
> is not responsible for interpretations of his writings by others,
> whether fascist or anarchist or muddled middle, and with that I can
> unhesitatingly agree.

Yes, but that was Unleesh's statement. I have only generalize this  
statement, because it isn't historical correct to ignore the fascist  
interpretations only.
>
> > It's not my responsibility, if you understood a philosopher like Nietz-
> > sche as isolated without any effect on history.
>
> Correct. So why are you getting hot n bothered about it?
>
> > What the fuck does your comment/protest have to do with my words?  --
> > Answer : nothing. It's not my responsibility, if you are not able to read
> > and to understand. It's your fucking responsibility, if YOU bring in
> > McCarty Era tactics here of guilt by associations about my words....
>
> Give us a break! Neither Unleesh's rudeness nor your shrill response
> amounts to anything as awful as McCarthyism.

So?! -- You mean: Why don't you ignore Unleesh's absurd reproach that  
questions are McCarthy Era tactics? -- Give me a break!

My questions wasn't neither associations nor McCarthy Era tactics by  
association....
>
> > If you are not able to
> > discuss, nobody will hold you if you leave....
>
> This sounds like, "If you can't adress me with respect, I'll have to ask
> you to leave!", which is contrary to the rough&tumble "ethos" of this
> list.

That's not true because this is an anarchist list -- and anarchists should  
be able to discuss with respect for their mutual human dignity. If Unleesh  
assert against me that I use McCarthy Era tactics he deny my status as an  
anarchist and call me an archist. Therefore I cannot ignore this absurd  
reproach....

Nico






## CrossPoint v3.11 ##