Notes Introduction 1. Peter Bergmann, Nietzsche, ‘The Last Antipolitical German’ (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 4. It is not unique in the literature on Nietzsche to attribute such a position to him given his antistatist and individualistic doctrines. But these doctrines are often only superficially examined. 2. See David S. Thatcher, Nietzsche in England 1890–1914: The Growth of a Reputation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970), pp. 61–2. 3. Randolph Bourne, ‘Trans-National America’, Atlantic Monthly, June 1917, 778–86. 4. See Jules Harmand, Domination et colonisation (Paris: Ernest Flammarion, 1910), and Ernest Seillie¯re, La Philosophie de l’impérialisme (Paris: Plon- Nourrit, 1905). 5. Alfred Bäumler, ‘Nietzsche and National Socialism’, Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich, ed. George L. Mosse, trans. Salva- tor Attanasio (New York: Grosset & Dunlop, 1966), p. 99. See also Nietzsche, der Philosoph und Politiker (Leipzig: Reclam, 1931). 6. See, for example, Ernst Jünger, ‘Die Totale Mobilmachung’, Ernst Jünger Werke, Band 5, Essays I (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag), and Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1976). 7. Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche, Vols. II–IV, trans. David Farrell Krell (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984, 1987, 1982). This quotation is taken from Ernst Behler, Confrontations: Derrida/Heidegger/Nietzsche, trans. Steven Taubeneck (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), p. 101. 8. For example, Benito Mussolini and Julius Evola. 9. See Pierre-André Taguieff, ‘The Traditional Paradigm – Horror of Modernity and Antiliberalism: Nietzsche in Reactionary Rhetoric’, Why We Are Not Niet- zscheans, ed. Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut, trans. Robert de Loaiza (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 204. 10. Gyorgy Lukács, The Destruction of Reason, trans. Peter Palmer (Englewood Cuffs, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), pp. 321, 371. 11. See Douglas Smith, Transvaluations: Nietzsche in France 1872–1972 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). 12. Mark Warren, Nietzsche and Political Thought (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1988), p. 247. 13. Ibid., p. 142. 14. See Charles Andler, Nietzsche: sa vie et sa pensée, Vol. II (Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1958), p. 538. 15. As Nietzsche has been described. See James A. Gregor, The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism (New York: The Free Press, 1969), p. 127. 183 184 Nietzsche’s Machiavellian Politics 1 Wills to Power, Genealogy: Which Ones Are At War? 1. See, for example, Werner J. Dannhauser, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’, History of Polit- ical Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 794; and Nancy Love, Marx, Nietzsche and Modernity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), who writes, Nietzsche ‘under- stands the creation of social values, indeed society itself, in terms of politi- cal domination’, p. 10. 2. Tracy Strong, Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975, 1988), pp. 106, 189. 3. By the same token, any treatment of Nietzschean psychology should not be detached from his account of institutions, as it may perpetuate the very individualistic abstractions Nietzsche repudiates. 4. See Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity, trans. Dennis J. Schmitt (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996), p. 62. 5. As Strong writes, ‘Nietzsche’s genealogical investigations do not undermine all values and all modes of evaluation equally. There are past tendencies, as well as present ones . that Nietzsche esteems highly, and it is out of these estimations that his own ideal of the future emerges’ (Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of Transfiguration, p. 116). 6. Ansell-Pearson comments that ‘It would be mistaken, as well as misleading, to infer from Nietzsche’s construction of a typology of morals that he is simply for master morality and against slave morality. Such an assessment would fail to appreciate the historical basis of Nietzsche’s attempt to trace the evolution of humanity as a moral species’ (Keith Ansell-Pearson, An Introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker: The Perfect Nihilist, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 132). None the less, once the aforesaid ‘historical basis’ is appreciated, as it should be, that master and slave moral- ities are intertwined, that sometimes they occur ‘within a single soul’, it is important to note that Nietzsche’s typology is about ‘two basic types and one basic difference’ (BGE 260), and that he is attempting to recover this ‘difference’, no doubt with a decided preference, over and against the ‘tyranny’ of the Christian moral interpretation which ‘has educated the spirit’ (BGE 188). Second, while these moralities may occur ‘within a single soul’, Nietzsche says it is a ‘higher nature’ who realizes itself as ‘a genuine battleground of these opposed values’. In short, ‘today there is perhaps no more decisive mark of a ‘higher nature’, than that of being ...a genuine battleground of these opposed values’ (GM I 16). 7. Of amor fati, this ‘highest state of affirmation’ that can be attained, Niet- zsche writes, ‘It is part of this state to perceive not merely the necessity of those sides of existence hitherto denied, but their desirability . as the more powerful, more fruitful, truer sides of existence. It is also part of this state to depreciate that side of existence which alone has been affirmed hitherto’ (WP 1041 Nachlaß 1888 KSA 13 16[32]). 8. It should be said that Nietzsche does not completely reject the ascetic ideal, which is to say, its disciplinary aspect, for he considers it necessary for ‘the education of the will’ (WP 916 Nachlaß 1887 KSA 12 10[165]). ‘To grant oneself the right to exceptional actions; as an experiment in self- overcoming and freedom. ...To create control and certainty in regard to Notes 185 one’s strength of will through asceticism of every kind’ (WP 921 Nachlaß 1887–88 KSA 13 11[146]). See, also, BGE 61. 9. See also On the Genealogy of Morals: ‘The ascetic ideal has a goal . it inter- prets epochs, nations, and men inexorably with a view to this one goal; it permits no other interpretation, no other goal; it rejects, denies, affirms, and sanctions solely from the point of view of its interpretation . it submits to no power, it believes in its own predominance over every other power’ (GM III 23). 10. Eugen Dühring (1833–1921) and Adolf Stöcker (1835–1909), founder of the Christian Socialist Workers’ Party in 1878. On Dühring and Stöcker as ‘intel- lectual forerunners of the Third Reich’, see Weaver Santaniello, ‘A Post-Holo- caust Re-Examination of Nietzsche and the Jews: Vis-à-Vis Christendom and Nazism’, Nietzsche & Jewish Culture, ed. Jacob Golomb (London: Routledge, 1997) and, Nietzsche, God and the Jews: His Critique of Judeo-Christianity in Relation to the Nazi Myth (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994). Among the anarchists, Nietzsche refers to Mikhail Bakunin (1813–76) in an 1873 notebook entry: ‘Bakunin, who out of hatred for the present wants to destroy history and the past ...he...wants to destroy all prior cultivation, our intellectual inheritance in its entirety’ (UW 26[14] 1873 KSA 7). 11. See also ‘they make the ruling classes responsible for their character’ (WP 765 Nachlaß 1888 KSA 13 15[30]). See also WP 98 Nachlaß 1887 KSA 12 9[146]: Rousseau sought the ‘cause of his wretchedness in the ruling classes’. 12. In The Politics, Aristotle writes, ‘That one should command and another obey is both necessary and expedient. Indeed, some things are so divided right from birth, some to rule, some to be ruled . that by nature some are free others slaves’ (1254a17) (Aristotle, The Politics, trans. T. A. Sinclair, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986). Nietzsche recovers the Aristotelian justification of a natural division of labour, of natural slavery. A theory of natural slavery is also held by Herodotus, Plato and the Roman Republicans. 13. This process is evident in a notebook entry from 1885–86: ‘The Body as a Political Structure. The aristocracy in the body, the majority of the rulers (struggle between cells and tissues). Slavery and division of labor: the higher type possible only through the subjugation of the lower....Inference con- cerning the evolution of mankind: perfecting consists in the production of the most powerful individuals, who will use the great mass of people as their tools (and indeed the most intelligent and most pliable tools)’ (WP 660 Nachlaß 1885–86 KSA 12 2[76]). 14. See letter to Georg Brandes, 2 December 1887. The Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche, ed. Christopher Middleton (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), p. 279: ‘The expression “aristocratic radicalism”, which you use, is very good. That is, if I may say so, the shrewdest remark that I have read about myself till now.’ Brandes was the first to lecture on Nietzsche. In his correspondence with Nietzsche Brandes says he finds Nietzsche’s ‘aristocratic radicalism’ and his distaste for ‘democratic mediocrity’ harmonious with his own ideas, but does not agree with Nietzsche’s views on women, his ‘contempt for the morality of pity’ (26 November 1887), nor his ‘impetuous pronouncements against . socialism and anarchism’ (17 December 1887). See also Georg Brandes, ‘An Essay on Aristocratic Radicalism’ (1889), Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. A. G. Chater (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1915). 186 Nietzsche’s Machiavellian Politics 15. As Casey writes, ‘For Nietzsche, the strong exercise of the will is in itself good, and essential to what is noble in man’ (John Casey, Pagan Virtue: An Essay on Ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 141). 16. Ishay Landa, ‘Nietzsche, the Chinese Worker’s Friend’, New Left Review, No. 236, July/August 1999, 3–23, p. 9. 17. See, Antonio Negri, Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State, trans. Maurizia Boscagli (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), p.