>> 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.
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.
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.
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.