chapotraphouse

As someone who has actually never read Nietzsche, but some years ago did a course in college that had him, I have to ask: What is so wrong about Dessalines description of Nietzsche?

My takeaway from the course was that he was sort of a proto-fascist saying that society was divided between the weak and the strong, and if wasn't for certain institutions that "glorify" the weak like the Judeo-Christian religions, the strong would rightfully subjugate the weak.

If that is a wrong view of his work I'm open for other interpretations.

https://dessalines.github.io/essays/nietzsche.html

All direct quotes from Nietzche:

It is dangerous to try equality with a woman; she will not be content with that; she will be rather content with subordination if the man is a man. Above all, her perfection and happiness lie in motherhood.

Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren’t even shallow.

From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty.

Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant… she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak–she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong… Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the ‘powerful’, the ‘strong’, the men.

Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker’s sense of satisfaction with his small existence–who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights.

A high civilization is a pyramid; it can stand only upon a broad base; its prerequisite is a strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity.

Only a man of intellect should hold property.