City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Fred Siegel
Nietzsche on Eggshells « Back to Story
Comments are closed for this story.

Showing 37 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
But FS applies a well-practiced triple-hammer lock by reminding us that Nietzsche is closely associated with some scary, bad, evil words so we must think no more about him. Beware Nietzsche.

But by this logic anyone who writes anything that may either be completely misunderstood, or appropriated by those cynical enough to exploit the errors which a literal reading might provide, to their own ends, is potentially dangerous and their writings worthy of being placed on an intellectual index. Those who have studied Nietzsche's writings in any detail,especially in recent years, are aware that a clean, unadulterated version of the texts of his works was only available beginning forty or so years ago and that many still extant versions of his works in English are full of errors or wild mistranslations. What is needed is a decent and accurate English language edition of his works, which might shed much needed light on his thought and correct many outright errors and false assumptions.

: Rob (Jan. 30 7:09PM)

Right Rob, and one of them, as I said in my last post, is you.

Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"

I haven't heard that riposte since kindergarten. In intellect and sophistication, however, it's worthy of someone who trots out the naive self-refutation argument against perspectivism and then struts like a peacock, thinking to himself, "thus do I refute Neetzy".

It reminds me as well of all the crackpot armchair "physicists" with high school educations who used to write to Richard Feynman and others "refuting" Einstein. Such delusional individuals merely evoke sad smiles, like our friend here. At least the Bedlam lunatics I alluded to earlier were sometimes entertaining.

I won't feed the trolls, or mock the intellectually unfortunate here again, though, I promise!
I believe that N's point was that the modern condition was essentially poisonous because it is nihilistic. He attempted to point a way through it by accepting what was basically true about the death of god so that we would have the opportunity to triumph over it. This won't happen by closing the book and hoping for a different ending. Accusing N of nihilism (a Rovian move -- accuse the opposition of whatever it is you happen to be trying to get away with yourself) doesn't help. There is no philosophy today which protects us from the end-game of modernity. We either move forward or fail.

: Rob (Jan. 30 7:09PM)

Right Rob, and one of them, as I said in my last post, is you.

: Dave (8:42PM)

It's all "bad philology." Whatever you say, Dave.

: Ramesh Raguvanshi (Jan. 31, 1:26AM)

"No doubt he was a great philosopher though he borrowed many idea (sic) from philosopher (sic, sic) Spinoza, Emerson and Schopenauer he (sic) wrote in (sic) charming language (sic) his dancing tone that made him (sic) great stylist writer."

Thanks for that Ramesh but no, your language is not "charming." No chance of supporting your other claims, I suppose? No, I didn't think so.

: Mark Shulgasser (12:28PM)

"... Nietzsche is closely associated with some scary, bad, evil words so we must think no more about him."

Thanks for that Mark. You should speak to Dave about "bad philology."

A pleasure as always.

Sounds like JR-R is trying to make Nietzsche boring and nice, PC even.
But FS applies a well-practiced triple-hammer lock by reminding us that Nietzsche is closely associated with some scary, bad, evil words so we must think no more about him. Beware Nietzsche.
Ramesh Raghuvanshi January 31, 2012 at 1:26 AM
All philosopher Eastern Or Western wrote their unconscious autobiography as their philosophy.From Childhood Nietzsche was very weak and suffered by chronic diseases, that is why he wrote violently in war like tone.His pompous language is attractive to common man and politicans.Nazis perverted it for their selfish purpose.No doubt he was great philosopher though he borrowed many idea from philosopher Spinoza, Emerson and Schopenhauer he wrote in charming language his dancing tone that made him great stylist writer
Interesting review. Siegel is to be commended for asserting those Nietzschean aspects neglected by Ratner-Rosenbhagen, particularly with regard to the widely-known O'Brien article of 1970. My only caveat: when it comes to The Will to Power, as Kaufman rightly demonstrates, this represents scraps from FN's notebooks, and not any sort of philosophic statement he intended for publication; if we were all to be judged based on the private thoughts of our journals, then god forbid! Finally, why downgrade the chapter on the reactions of obscure American readers? To do so is to commit oneself to an aristocratic brand of knowledge, whereby only the opinions of those holding fame and fortune matter vis-a-vis this trans-continental exchange. If the reviewer's goal is to oppose aristocratic values then he should celebrate this sweeping egalitarianism committed by the author. Besides, this chapter is among the most interesting to those of us who know all too much about Mencken's Nietzsche (which has been not-incorrectly lampooned by some as a little too similar to a sort of 'Cliff Notes' FN.)
This article is trash. The author has either read Nietzsche and is being disingenuous, or has not read him and is ignorant. For Nietzsche,'peoples' meant cultures. It is certain that Nietzsche did not mean 'the Jews or the Poles', as he admired Jews as a people who 'love life', expressed hope that they would be 'the future of Europe', hated anti-semites (calling them 'liars', expressing a desire to have them all shot, and wishing to have no part in 'this monstrous race-lie'), and liked to consider himself to be of Polish descent! It is more likely he meant the culture of German nationalism when speaking of what should 'perish', as it disgusted him. Anyone who cares to actually read him can confirm this.

It is astonishing that someone who is described as a 'scholar' can print an article so essentially lacking in all scholarly virtue as this is. It is 'bad philology'. The only question is what motivates Fred Siegel in this grubby exercise - is he disingenuous for the sake of his personal ideology, as people with ideologies tend to be? Or merely ignorant of Nietzsche's writings? Either way, shame on Siegel and this journal for printing such slanderous journalistic rubbish. For shame!
At least Nietzsche kept a dignified silence during his last days of mental decline. Some here could learn from his example.

Signing off, now. Replying even indirectly to the likes of Luke and Montrealman makes me feel slightly guilty, like an 18th-Century paying gawker touring Bedlam.

:Tali Makell (Jan. 30, 1:17PM)

I guess I called it right on Steve. He called me a "borderline illiterate" but I think Steve is the one who is a "borderline anti-Semite."

: Professor ( 2:32PM)

"Mr. Siegel fails to appreciate the metaphorical nature of philosophical writings and quotes Nietzsche out of context."

That's a nice introductoty sentence, Professor. Now, here's your chance to talk about both that metaphorical nature of philosophical writings as well as the correct context in which Nietzsche should be quoted. Go for it, Professor!

: Luke Lea (3:05PM & 3:33PM)

You must expand on your philosophy of the nerd, Luke. It sounds like you've thought about this deeply. Well, as deeply as you are able.

: Rob (3:36PM)

Re: the "Internet trolls, the mentally ill and subnormal, and those lice starting to move."

Is that why you're on this site, Rob? And why not name the person who can't even get Fred Siegel's name right? I checked but couldn't come up with it. Don't be chicken, Rob. Out with it. Maybe Steve's waiting.

A pleasure as always.

There is a tad of sleight of hand in referring to Nietzsche's Will to Power" as posthumously published without noting he wrote no such book. It was put together by people he himself had denounced for their views.
One thing is absolutely clear and beyond argument: Nietzsche as a SUBJECT appeals to Internet trolls, as well as to the mentally ill and subnormal. There's nothing like an article about Nietzsche to bring such types out of the woodwork, the way that warm temperatures cause lice to start moving.

The anti-Nietzsche comments here make that fact especially clear. I particularly like the one from the person who can't even get the review author's (Fred Siegel's) name right, and instead goes on and on about "Sol Stern". Keep up the good work, folks. Nietzsche's reputation is in no danger, and in the meantime you provide us with a good laugh, even if unintentionally.
I speculate that Nietzsche's philo-Semitism may have been rooted in his nerdiness: here he saw a "nerdy" people, surrounded by dummkopfs (aka 'muscular Christians'), whose superiority/inferiority complex matched his own. I am speaking of the situation as it existed in Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the late 19th century.
Not only was Nietzsche a quintessential nerd, a physically puny, cowardly shrimp of a man who couldn't play with the big boys or attract the girls, but his appeal is mainly to fellow nerds. I've yet to meet a true alpha male who gave two figs about Nietzsche.
I have not had the pleasure of reading Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen's book YET, but I have read the collected works of Nietzsche and Walter Kaufman's books on Nietzsche's texts. Therefore, I feel qualified to comment on Fred Segal's screed against Nietzsche and those who continue to appreciate his significant contribution to philosophy. Mr. Segal fails to appreciate the metaphorical nature of philosophical writings and quotes Nietzsche's work out of context. If you want to condemn a collection of works because they have been misused to harm others, the Holy Bible certainly is a better exemplar.
In any case, Nietzsche does not need defending--read his works for yourself, then form an opinion.
"Was Nietzsche a Nazi? Steve is outraged. No philosopher in history, according to Steve, ever had a more favourable opinion of the Jews. Well, that's nice, Steve, but supporting quotations would have been nice.
Otherwise, your post is just hot blow."

I quote from a letter which Niezsche wrote to his sister in December of 1887:

..."You have committed one of the greatest stupidities–for yourself and for me. Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreigness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with ire or is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to anti-Semitism, namely opposed to it, as I am in my writings. I have recently been persecuted with letters and Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheets. My disgust with this party (which would like the benefit of my name only too well) is as pronounced as possible, but the relation to Förster, as well as the aftereffects of my former publisher, the anti-Semitic Schmeitzner, always brings the adherents of this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must belong to them after all...It arouses mistrust against my character, as if I publicly condemned something which I favored secretly–and that I am unable to do anything against it, that the name of Zarathustra is used in every Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheet, has almost made me ill several times."

: Kevin (Jan. 30, 10:25AM)

There's no chance of telling us just whay that that quotation from Sol Stern is "contemptible" and "demagogic," is there Kevin? But no, I suppose not.

Way back (Jan. 21, 10:56AM) I predicted that the commenters on Sol Stern's article would descend into a debate over who had the "correct" reading of Nietzsche and, guess what, it has descended into a debate over who had the "correct" reading of Nietzsche.

The more interesting, and profitable, approach was to listen to Sol Stern's words and attempt to understand the workings of his mind behind them. But it was not to be.

A pleasure as always.

As his own review demonstrates, Siegel is right about one thing: Rational, dispassionate, thorough, and honest overviews of Nietzsche's ideas and their transmission are rare, indeed. The following contemptible, demagogic passage speaks for itself, I think, as a prime example of this rarity:

"Like the apologists for jihad who portray it as an internal quest for purification, advocates for Nietzsche acrobatically rope off his praise for war and cruelty as matters of spiritual struggle. "

Perhaps Siegel requires "acrobatics" in order to avoid simplistic, literal readings of texts, but that limitation does not apply to everyone.

It is also interesting that SIegel seems to accept at face value Mencken's understanding of Nietzsche. In fact, Mencken's unbalanced book overflows with howlers, and Nietzsche's perspectivism, as well as his critique of science and Enlightenment rationality, are actually embarrassingly absent from it.

As for *The Will to Power*, Nietzsche never intended to publish those notes, and the first version to appear was grossly tainted by his anti-Semitic sister's textual meddling.

As to Americans' alleged "embrace" of Perspectivism, I'd like to see more evidence of this--indeed, I'd like to see evidence that most Americans, including Siegel, even understand it. For instance, if Siegel's peroration in his last paragraph is any indication, then his grasp of Perspectivism is as feeble as that of most of his fellow Americans. Not that that matters, since he merely has an axe to grind. Ratner-Roosenhagen's book may not be as "balanced" (read: negative and dismissive) as Siegel would like for it to be, but--and pace this review--she does a far better job in that respect than he does.
This seems to me a strong and correct critique of Nietzsche's worst self. Only if one does not take the 'Superman' idea seriously can one excuse its transformation into the despicable 'Ubermensch' conception.
Apparently Ratner-Rosenhagen fell into the frequently self- damaging trap of the biographer over-sympathetic with their subject.
I see Nietzsche as a 19th century nerd: a Walter Mitty figure with a Napoleon complex.
Again, as in every critique of Nietzsche from those who have never read him, comes the inevitable quotation from the non-existent book, Will To Power, which was assembled, rather haphazardly, from notes Nietzsche wrote, but never intended for publication. This oft-quoted"book" was put together by Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth, whose husband, an avowed anti-Semite, had established a failed anti-Semitic colony in Paraguay. It was only after her husband's death and Nietzsche's descent into madness that Elisabeth, who had never understood her brother's writings, took charge of his legacy, and that is the reason his work has been associated with the aspirations of the Nazis and their fellow travelers. As to Mencken, it is clear that he too misunderstood Nietzsche, as he railed against Germany and its Imperial aspirations, going so far as to leave his native country and spend the remainder of her creative life in Switzerland, Italy or France (in Nizza, or Nice, as it was later called). As to "cruelty and war", these refer to cruelty with oneself, to war with oneself, in order to achieve a higher sensibility. Nietzsche, who suffered much during the Franco-Prussian War, was no war monger, nor was he ever a German nationalist. German nationalism and anti-Semitism were the issues which caused the break between Nietzsche and Wagner. In order to critique a book about a philosopher as complex as Nietzsche it might help to read a decent biography of the man in order to avoid such clearly mistaken assertions as are found in this useless article.
: Steve (Jan. 26, 7:24PM)

" City Journal and Fred Siegal is Fred Siegal. Jews are the prism through which the entire world is viewed."

Well, whatever you say Steve. Anyway, thanks for the compliment, i.e. I was just "borderline illiterate" rather than going the whole hog. I guess that's why I missed the part about Nietzsche's anti-Semitism in Fred Siegel's article. You can read my take on it if you scroll down this thread, but something tells me it wouldn't make much of a difference to you, would it Steve.

You could also read TakuanSoho's (7:46PM) take on it as well but I guess he's "borderline illiterate" as well.

A pleasure as always.
It wasn't Nietzsche who was anti-Semitic, it was his sister Elisabeth.

Married to the noted German Anti-Semite Berhard Forster, they left Germany in 1886 to found Neuva Germania, a "pure" german colony in Paraguay. The failure of this colony caused him to commit suicide in 1889. She returned to Germany even more committed to hating Jews.

Nietzsche loved his sister, but hated her husband. He wrote multiple letters stating how much he loathed anti-Semites, and that her association with them caused the break in their relationship.

Check out letters 7&8 to see how vehemently Nietzsche was an anti-anti-Semite. There is no question here, no ability to doubt. Can anyone read these and still doubt where Nietzsche himself stood on this issue?

Will to Power as someone pointed out was not a book, it was a collection of his notes selectively edited by Elisabeth to appear to be anti-Semitic. The line about "decadent races destined to go extinct" needs to be read in light of his other writings, which makes it perfectly clear that the decadent race that Nietzsche most loathed and was probably writing about were the Germans.

"A very good quotation, Steve but, of course, it completely missed the point of Fred Siegel's piece on Nietzsche which, as you might recall, had nothing to do with his (Nietzsche's) views of Jews but rather the debate over the use made of his philosophy - the "ubermensch" and all that - by the Nazis."

You are borderline illiterate if you think that Seigel was not objecting to Nietzsche and that his article "had nothing to do with his (Nietzsche's) views of Jews", or with views of the Jews in general. This is City Journal and Fred Siegal is Fred Siegal. Jews are the prism though which the entire world is viewed. That which is anti-Jewish (or even that which is incorrectly believed to be anti-Jewish) must be banished to the outer darkess.
B. Samuel Davis (Jan.23, 11:12AM)

May I call you Sammy? Sammy, your post reads like a series of biases and contradictions. The first is your narrowly pragnmatic "modernism." "Who reads Nietzsche today?" you ask. The assumption, of coure, is that no one does since he is not relevant to today. But Sammy, look at Steve below. He reads Nietzsche, so you're wrong. In any case Sammy, you've got to establish that Nietzsche is without value, not just assert it.

Then comes you total "relativism."
According to you Nietzsche can be "interpreted differently by different people." But Sammy, either that is a platitude or reflects a self-contradictory philosophical position. I'll assume it's not a platitude, Sammy, so your claim that Nietzsche is interpreted differently by different people is a self-refuting assertion. While claiming to be an absolute to which you alone are privy, your assertion, by definition, must also be completely relativistic. Do you understand what you're letting yourself in for, Sammy? I'll tell you: You're contradicting yourself. While claiming that everything is relative, you then proceed to utter (what you falsely take) an absolute truth. In other words, Sammy, you're claiming that there IS no true interpretation of Nietzsche, except, of course, your own. Do you understand that, Sammy? I doubt it.

Further, you claim that people interpret Nietzsche on the basis of their prejudices. Sammy, your assertion that Nietzsche's views are just so many "syphilitic rantings" reveals your own prejudices which, of course, in addition to being baseless, completely disqualifies you as a competent commenter. You do understand that, don't you Sammy? Probably not.

Finally (at long last) Sammy, your claim that today's "information age" makes society "less hierarchical and more equal" is incoherent. First, "information" doesn't do anything. It's just information. Second, I think you're confusing equality with volume, Sammy. You know, people like you.

But don't be discouraged, Sammy. Try again some time.

Steve (2:56PM)

Steve, your reference to "collegiality and good taste" is misplaced. I was referring to Platt, not to you. I would never doubt your collegiality and good taste, Steve. You know that.

A very good quotation, Steve but, of course, it completely missed the point of Fred Siegel's piece on Nietzsche which, as you might recall, had nothing to do with his (Nietzsche's) views of Jews but rather the debate over the use made of his philosophy - the "ubermensch" and all that - by the Nazis.

But hey, Steve, thanks for the quote. Nice reading.
>"that's nice, Steve, but supporting quotations would have been nice.
Otherwise, your post is just hot blow."

I refrained from that in the interests of collegiality and good taste.

But since your invocation of those was clearly just hot blow, here you go. Just one sample to whet your appitite. If you want more, pick up one of his books.

"Incidentally, the whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred. In almost all contemporary nations, therefore—in direct proportion to the degree to which they act up nationalistically—the literary obscenity is spreading of leading the Jews to slaughter as scapegoats of every conceivable public and internal misfortune. As soon as it is no longer a matter of preserving nations, but of producing the strongest possible European mixed race, the Jew is just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant. Unpleasant, even dangerous, qualities can be found in every nation and every individual: it is cruel to demand that the Jew be an exception. In him, these qualities may even be dangerous and revolting to an unusual degree; and perhaps the young stock-exchange Jew is altogether the most disgusting invention of mankind. In spite of that I should like to know how much one must forgive a people in a total accounting when they have had the most painful history of all peoples, not without the fault of all of us, and when one owes to them the noblest man (Christ), the purest sage (Spinoza), the most powerful book, and the most effective moral law in the world. Moreover, in the darkest times of the Middle Ages, when the Asiatic cloud masses had gathered heavily over Europe, it was Jewish free-thinkers, scholars, and physicians who clung to the banner of enlightenment and spiritual independence in the face of the harshest personal pressures and defended Europe against Asia. We owe it to their exertions, not least of all, that a more natural, more rational, and certainly unmythical explanation of the world was eventually able to triumph again, and that the bond of culture which now links us with the enlightenment of Greco-Roman antiquity remained unbroken. If Christianity has done everything to orientalize the Occident, Judaism has helped significantly to occidentalize it again and again: in a certain sense this means as much as making Europe's task and history a continuation of the Greek."

From "Human, All Too Human".
Who reads Nietzsche today? He can be interpreted differently by different people, depending on the prejudices (and character, or lack thereof) of the reader. As for the comment "we’ve unfortunately become a far more hierarchical and unequal society" the contrary is true, as a result of the information age we've never been less "hierarchical and unequal."

Find in Nietzsche what you will, but his 19th century perspective and syphilitic rantings are not terrifically relevant to anything happening today.
Michael Platt (Jan. 21, 10:56AM)

I previously wrote that instead of poring over Nietzsche's writings to determine exactly what he did (or did not) mean, we should engage in "doing philosophy" ourselves. Sadly, however, Michael Platt goes even lower: not only does he not "do philosophy" - he clearly is incapable of doing so - he doesn't even engage Nietzsche's writing. What he does do is talk, irrelevantly, about the activities of Nietzsche's sister!

In addition to being pedantically irrelevant, Platt is also guilty of cringe-making pomposity. This is a "Comment" section, not one where parading one's academic qualifications - if that's what they are - is considered "good form." But I guess Platt doesn't get it. By the way, this is not out of jealousy. I could also have done the same thing but refrained in the interests of collegiality and good taste. I guess those two items were not covered in your doctoral syllabus.

Steve (10:51AM)

Was Nietzsche a Nazi? Steve is outraged. No philosopher in history, according to Steve, ever had a more favourable opinion of the Jews. Well, that's nice, Steve, but supporting quotations would have been nice.
Otherwise, your post is just hot blow.

Benn Gunn (Jan. 22, 4:21PM)

Right on, Benn, but it might have been more"right on" to hear just one reason why you thought Fred was right on. Do you realize how mindless your post appeared, Benn? Probably not.
Right ON ! Go Fred!
This article seems a bit confused. If you have a bone to pick with Mencken, for instance, then pick it with Mencken.

And "The Will To Power" is not "Nietzsche’s posthumously published" book. It is a collecton (supposedly) of his notes and jottings assembled into book form by his sister after his death.

"Walter Kaufmann explained it away by noting that Nietzsche hadn’t mentioned the Jews and Poles directly"

What complete and utter rubbish. Nietzsche did mention Jews directly in many places throughout his many actual books. And he always did so in a very positive, even philo-Jewish, fashion. No philosopher in history has had a more favorable opinion of the Jews than Friedrich Nietzsche. This attempt to depict him as a murderous proto-Nazi is outrageous. He was the polar opposite of a Nazi.
The reviewer says:
O’Brien tellingly quotes from Nietzsche’s posthumously published The Will to Power on the “annihilation of decaying races.”

No one can tellingly quote from a book an author did not write; repulsive as some of Nietzsche leftover notes are, no one knows what he would have done with them; but from twenty-five or so leftover plans, Nietzsche's opportunistic sister selected one closest to her intellect and put it out as a planned Wille-zur-Macht book, while delaying his completed Ecce Homo and Der Antichrist, and while forging her name to letters of his to others. Moreover, over thirty years ago Mazzino Montinari showed that by the end of August '88 Nietzsche had put aside all plans for a Wille-zur-Macht book. No wonder that before he left Sils Maria that last summer, he is reported to have told Herr Durrish, his landlord, to throw out a whole basket of notes, perhaps including the famous No.1052.
Benjamin W. Hartley January 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Mr. Siegel:

Your last paragraph is a near-perfect description of the typical denizen of inside-the-beltway Washington, D.C.

Ben Hartley
John Russell

I don't suppose you'd have any basis for that claim, would you John?

No, I didn't think so.
Mr. Siegel has given us one of the most delightful commentaries on fat-headed philosophizing since Candide.
thanks for you great service to NYC, and thanks for exposing in this article Mencken's implicit sympathies with Nazism.
"Truths are illusuions we have forgotten are illusions." Nietzsche

In the spirit of "doing philosophy" rather than merely poring over a close reading of Nietzsche to determine what he did (or did not) mean, Montrealman is more interested in hearing what Fred Siegel has to say and, more importantly, the reasons why he says it.

Siegel is against the current postmodernist/existentialist philosophical ascendancy of "perspectivism," the view "that no firm footing exists for asserting the truth or falsity of a particular claim." Like "constructivism" - the view from within - "perspectivism" - the view from without - maintains that there is nothing beyond the perspective, nothing beyond one's own constructs, which will endorse any truth claim or to which any appeal might be made. Right, now will Siegel proceed to give grounds for his own position which, one supposes, since it concerns the validity of truth claims, consists of a variation of some form of epistemological "foundationalism?" But what form, and how does it trump Ratner-Rosenhagen's "sunny reading" of Nietzsche? Sadly, Siegel provides no such grounds. Religious belief is out, and only philosophy remains. But what can philosophy have to say to counter the current assaults of perspectivism?

Very simply, philosophy will point to the self-contradiction contained in the assertion which embodies the perspectivist position. Look at Nietzsche's quotation above - "truths are illusions we have forgotten are illusions." But what is that? What does it mean? It is, of course, a "truth claim," the very thing that Nietzsche rejects. That is called self-contradiction and trumps the perspectivist viewpoint. In other words, to be philosophically consistent, the perspectivist is condemned to silence. He can make no assertions whatsoever since to do so is to bring himself under his own interdict.

Siegel was right to reject perspectivism but his reasons for doing so needed plumping up.
"Like the apologists for jihad who portray it as an internal quest for purification"

Right, because that's what it means, and why almost every single modern scholar of Islam describes it that way. Are they all "acrobatically roping off" the term in tandem just to trick you?

Besides, it seems mighty unfair to blame Nietzsche for the horrible actions of the Nazis. The man was in fact persecuted for NOT attacking the Jews in some of his later works. Also, he had been dead many decades by the time they came to power.

You should stick to economics and leave philosophy and religion to people who know what they're talking about. Which isn't me. But I can smell BS when I read it.