“God is dead,” is an aphorism ascribed to the philosophy of Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s philosophy however did not initiate God’s death in 19th century Europe, but might have supplied the coup de grâce. He looked at the present state of European beliefs and ideologies and, like all good prophets, saw the eminent apocalypse of those beliefs (and everything else) if they are allowed to continue. Subsequently, Nietzsche’s will to power has been misinterpreted and distorted by many pre- and post-Nazi thinkers as contributing to Nazism and totalitarian Germany. While Nietzsche’s writings do not advocate a superior race, racism, or genocide, there are ways of viewing his philosophy, usually grossly out of context, that could be seen to promote Nazism.

Albert Camus, in his essay The Rebel, states that Nietzsche believes a nihilist is “not one who believes in nothing, but one who does not believe in what exists.” What did Nietzsche see as existing? Firstly, as mentioned above, the attitude that God is dead was generally accepted among the educated; however, they did not know how to react to the death of the immortal. Secondly, among the religious institutions of Europe there was the reigning idea of ressentiment based upon the slave moralist’s victory over those of master morality. These are the ideas upon which Nietzsche’s nihilism was created, for while he believed in the former position, he believed that without proper direction it could be as deadly as the latter; these ideas could also supply the foundations for Nazi Germany.

God is dead provided for the birth of a new “nihilistic,” Ivan Karamazovian, attitude that “all is permitted.” While Camus states that the metaphysical rebel is not necessarily an atheist, in either case they do not recognize the immortal premise for morality when the suffering and death of children is allowed and even condoned. All is permitted instilled a metaphysical anarchism, or total freedom, where only fear and portentous destruction could exist. And Camus tells us that “without law there is no freedom.” Fear, for Nietzsche, was the opposite of the will to power. A nation of those who fear is ripe for the emergence of a totalitarian regime.

In the absence of a divine basis for morality Nietzsche says that a new basis for values must be created; for “freedom exists only in a world where what is possible is defined at the same time as what is not possible,” says Camus of Nietzsche. “If we do not make of God’s death a great renunciation and a perpetual victory over ourselves, we will have to pay for that omission,” states Nietzsche embracing asceticism as the end of his rebellion. Therefore Nietzsche replaces Ivan Karamazov’s “everything is permitted” with “nothing is permitted.” The ascetic, in the absence of God, becomes the creator:

Goethe, Beethoven, Socrates, and Michelangelo were all creators of values according to Nietzsche. Therefore the values that should build a society and culture come from the minds of the strangers, or rebels, that create and maintain the beautiful. They create a faith of those above ressentiment because they affirm not only their own being but also all existence. They say yes by consenting to the only true God: the world governed by fate.

This idea is a leitmotif throughout Nietzsche’s works: the anti-political individual who submits to the inevitable while seeking self-perfection far from the modern world. This freedom based upon the creativity of the artist is very removed from Hitler’s totalitarian Germany; yet this is just an end. If Nietzsche’s and Hitler’s philosophies are both considered in a teleological perspective they could appear similar. Yet Nietzsche did not advocate racism or a superior race — even warning against these ideas — which is also attributed to his philosophy.

Nietzsche’s idea of race could be more easily misconstrued by many of his writings. Yet, Walter Kaufmann in his book Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, assures us that: “Even in the context of Nietzsche’s early philosophy it was pointed out that this doctrine [of master and slave morality] was dynamite insofar as it insisted that the gulf between some men and others is more significant than between man and animal.” But it is clearly evinced by the above that Nietzsche looked at art, religion, and philosophy — not to race — for humanity’s position above the beasts. While Nietzsche held the society of the ancient Greeks in high esteem he did not adopt their us-and-them conception toward cultural segregation. In fact, Kaufmann elucidates, Nietzsche’s view on race was based upon two central ideas: “the belief in the heredity of acquired characteristics and the conviction that race mixture might favor the attainment of the culture — both in nations and in individuals.” Nietzsche writes in Human, All-Too-Human that “the Jew is just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant.” Nietzsche could only be rascist when taken out of context as he was by many advocates of the Nazi movement.

While it is true that Nietzsche discussed masters and slaves, he did not advocate either one. Nietzsche, Camus tells us, “dreamed of tyrants who were artists. . . . A Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ. To his mind this was to say yes to both slave and master.” Nietzsche’s philosophy was one of the via media dictated by the tides of fate. The middle ground produced in the merging Apollonian and Dionysian elements of the creative soul: “One must yet have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.” Through a consent to the powers of nature and a middle way between them can give rise to a new value system free of extremes that can be found in totalitarianism, e.g. murder, fear, chaos, and methodical order.

Perhaps misconceptions of what Nietzsche had to say about the superman and will to power could lend themselves to the rise of a totalitarian ideology. However, when taken in context with an overall view of Nietzsche’s philosophy, it would be falacious for anyone to put the blame on Nietzsche. Aristotle demanded that a viewing public possess, or train to acquire, the intellectual capacity that would allow them to grasp (what we might call) the existential conceptions of tragedy; don’t we owe the same to Nietzsche before we denounce him as the precursor of Nazism? Admittedly his philosophy is not for the weak-willed or fearful, and falling into their hands might produce the misunderstanding leading to totalitarianism.