Is this all a quote from Nietzsche's work. It's certainly very hard to read. I have seen far more elegant and powerful writing of his in other passages. He's famous for his brilliant aphorisms and metaphors and beloved by many writers including WB Yeats from my country Ireland.
I'm wondering how does Nietzsche know what people thought like in prehistoric times . Scientists actually know very little about that, they're are no written records, they don't even know what kind of language they spoke. So how can Nietzsche comment on the ways of thinking of people pre civilization. It's hard enough for us moderns to even grasp how the ancient Greeks or Chinese thought. Again in my opinion Nietzsche is making vast sweeping generalizations which may sound very thought provoking and fascinating, but there's little to no substance or evidence to back up any of these statements. According to JP Stern, Nietszches knowledge of science, anthropology, etc was very scanty. So again his ideas about early human societies and their values would want to be taken with a grain of salt.
Personally I think where Nietszches thought is strongest is in his critique of Christianity and other secular ethical systems , such as Utilitarianism . But the alternative values that he posited to replace them I would again find partially dubious. His ideas about Amor Fati , perspectivism, and the Nihilism of contemporary society are very interesting points and very profound. But I don't think they're entirely original. Amor Fati comes originally from the ancient Stoics and perspectivism looks very similar to ideas in Buddhism or to Aristotle who describe perceiving things from different angles. Perhaps Nietzsche is to a certain extent reviving ideas that had largely disappeared from modern western thought . In Buddhism there is no God, nor is there the notions of Good versus evil, concepts which Nietszche attacks.

Nietzsche attacks Christianity for weakening western culture and as not encouraging the strong independent minded , creative genius. But what about The Renaissance in the 14th -16th centuries. This was a period when the Catholic church was a very dominant powerful force in Europe, yet the Renaissance produced one of the most astonishingly creative periods of art and culture and learning in the whole of European history. Scholars argue that the period even surpassed the Golden Age of Ancient Greece. This "Christian" period which Nietzsche despises produced some of the greatest and far sighted geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. How does Nietzsche explain that then. It doesn't seem to correlate with his theory that Christianity is a degenerative influence.

Explain how his ideas are invalid and your line of thinking is correct.

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”

Now explain what kind of validity is in the above statement. It sounds like something you could hear from some street corner guru.

I didn't say I don't like Nietzsche. By the way I'm not a Christian, I would be critical also of other philosophers including Plato, for the same reasons Nietzsche attacks him for his denying the reality of this world. Also Marx's theories are not drawn from REAL LIFE but dreamt up from his own prejudices. I also think that the notions of sin , salvation and hell in Christianity are unhealthy and ridiculous Ideas. But few people nowadays believe in them anymore anyway. I'm entitled to my opinion that philosophy should be ONLY based on REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE and in line with NATURE and for me Buddhism, Taoism and Stoicism are good examples of that type of philosophy. Don't misunderstand me I think Nietzsche is a brilliant writer and many of his critiques of religion and some secular philosophys are very thought provoking and penetrating. But his ideas are not necessarily all valid. I think SOME are off the wall. I think there's a grain of truth in what someone else on this blog said "Nietzsche is a bit like a Germanic version of Oscar Wilde" who is another beloved, brilliant and widely quoted writer but I wouldn't go to him for guidance on how to live a virtuous life.

[reply="Christoffer;572396"
Ok let's talk about Buddhism , it is often dismissed by western thinkers who are ignorant of Eastern thought ( which is not normally taught in western education system), or because of western centrism. Buddhism is a PHILOSOPHY as well as a religion. And many people , like myself only take the philosophy component and disregard the religious component. Stoicism is also a philosophy. I recommend you watch the excellent videos on it on YouTube by Einzelganger who relates these two philosophies to contemporary culture. See what he has to say not just me. In my opinion the strength of these philosophies is that they are not just drawn from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE but also in line with the way nature and reality works. They believe in living according to nature. I would hazard a guess that Nietzsche is selective in where he gets his ideas from, he despises so much of traditional culture and values that he's left with very little to work on.

I don't see how aphorisms can be seen as arguments. I disagree that Buddhism and Christianity are not based on everyday experiences. Love, compassion, forgiveness, kindness which they preach are part of the ways human beings relate to each other in a positive way . Ask any modern psychologist and they will tell you that practicing these virtues will enhance a person's happiness and those he/she interacts with. These virtues did not come from some academic textbook like Marx's theories they were developed by many thinkers over centuries, modified, built up and so on. They are drawn from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE of ORDINARY people in ordinary situations. Let me be the devil's advocate for a moment and I put the question . Where did Nietzsche get his ideas, eg The Will to Power, from reading another academic, Schopenhauer? To what extent has he backed up his ideas by observation of real people in real life?

But that's exactly what the Buddha said 2000 years before Nietzsche, namely that "suffering is your teacher" . It increases your compassion and understanding. Nietzsche is not original in this idea. I think Nietzsche has in mind Utilitarianism which he hated, which argues that pleasure is the highest good and that pain is to be avoided. I would agree with Nietzsche , Utilitarianism which has been hugely influential is a life denying or running alway from reality . For me Stoicism and Buddhism has far more wisdom. Perhaps Nietzsche doesn't realize that Stoicism has had a huge influence on western thought and culture , not only Christianity. Up until the early 20th century latin and Greek authors were a major part of education, like Cicero, Seneca, and others. Shakespeare was immersed in the classical writers of antiquity and hence the philosophy of Stoicism. Nietzsche seems to think that it's only Christianity that has dominated western thought. But Christianity was imbued with ancient philosophy.

Nietzsche writes in a series of aphorisms and metaphors which are often ambiguous. How does one define philosophy. If it is a not a discipline using rational argument or logic or some coherent set of ideas expressed in fiction as in Plato's dialogues then how do you distinguish genuine philosophy from pseudo philosophy. Is Nietzsche's ambiguous style genuine Philosophical thinking?

I completely agree that logic and rational argument is limited in conveyed the human condition. That's why we have had art, literature , religion , poetry and literary philosophy since Plato's dialogues. But my point is that the ideas presented in these narratives should be clear, just as Plato's ideas in his dialogues are clear, not ambiguous, as are the ideas in Sartre's and Camus,s novels and Shakespeares philosophical plays, and Dostoevskys philosophical novels. What is the point of conveying a set of ideas in ones fiction if the reader doesn't know what to make of, how to interpret them. Therefore in my opinion the likes of Plato and the above mentioned figures are more successful thinkers than Nietzsche. Just because he is popular doesn't mean he is an excellent thinker. The Bible and Marx are amongst the most popular works or figures of the 20th century but many people including myself think they're cloud Cuckooland.

I wonder would Nietzsche agree with you that he is not presenting a philosophy. He's doing more than just raise questions or proposing new viewpoints. He's propounding various notions such as the Will to power and the Superman. Is he trying to use rational argument and logic or emotional reasoning. Here's a quote from Nietzsche.
"Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”
Now that looks like emotional reasoning to me. His clever use of aphorisms and metaphors makes him , in my opinion , no more than a poet, rather than a serious philosopher. Its provocative and sensational nature also makes it very attractive , hence his cult like status amongst many people. Other existentialists like Sartre conveyed their philosophy in novels and plays, but Sartre in Being and Nothingness uses proper rational argument. But I don't find that anywhere in Nietzsche's thought. Kierkegaard employs irony and narrative techniques in his works, but unlike Nietzsche they are deliberately ambiguous. It's clear what his ideas are. Tell me another famous thinker apart from Nietzsche whose philosophy is full of ambiguity.

I'm afraid I disagree. Compassion and kindness are not just feelings , they are, as Aristotle would say excellences of Character but only if they are accompanied by kind actions. Then they become virtues. Virtues are as Aristotle says a matter of feeling + action. And cultivating these feelings is done by doing kind actions. And the more one does these the kinder the person becomes. I think most people today if you asked them would like to mix with kind people or friends and avoid unkind people. Anyway as you can probably gather I'm a devotee of Stoic and Buddhist philosophy , without the religious component. For me Nietzsche does not provide any coherent guidelines to live my life by, only thought provoking ideas and critiques of other philosophers.

I'm afraid I have to disagree that "Jesus and Nietzsche were not against the current culture. Both figures were very radical and they attacked many aspects of their current culture and Jesus was executed for doing so. Nietzsche , and I think I'm correct in this-. attacked the whole edifice and tradition of western thought going back to Socrates. How radical can you get. I'm not anti Nietzsche, I think he was a profound and original thinker and there is a grain of truth in his view of Christianity as a slave morality. But I think his psychological analysis is flawed in certain aspects. He, unlike modern psychologists or even thinkers like Aristotle, did not base his ideas on observation and empirical research, hard evidence. Anyone , in my opinion, who is arguing for or proposing philosophical or psychological ideas without basing them on empirical evidence is not doing proper philosophy. That's why some academics don't regard Nietzsche as a philosopher but as a writer, more akin to a novelist or poet who can express him/herself in an ambiguous way. But in that case then what they're saying is just their opinion. Philosophy in my opinion should not be conducted in this way. It should be based on reasoned argument, evidence and observation.

The real reason Nietzsche was against pity is because he thought it furthered the interests of the underdog. He was thinking especially of Christianity where pity for the unfortunate is a fundamental value of that religion.
However in everyday life pity is an important value. When my father was dying in a nursing home and I was full of grief. I felt pity for his suffering. This did not lead to him feeling pity , nor was it a "turning away from life" . It was my natural human empathy for seeing a loved one suffering. If I didn't feel any pity or compassion for him I would have been cold and unfeeling towards him and he may have suffered more if I hadn't shown the care I did. The reason I visited him for 6 years several times per week is not out of a sense of duty but because I felt compassion and love and kindness for him, the very virtues , (if Im not mistaken) Nietzsche despised. He had an agenda he wanted to attack the values of Christianity, and all the secular ethical systems which he claimed were based on Christianity. But he fails in my opinion, to understand that these ancient value systems such as Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism are based on the ordinary everyday real life experiences of ordinary people, not dreamt up inside the head of one academic sitting in his ivory tower who relishes attacking every single tradition of western thought and substituting in it's place some abstract notion of some Will to power and some mythical concept of a superman.

"but is not confined to current social structures, morality, etc as if they were eternal, fixed.". Its not so much a question that I misunderstand Nietzsche. I have read leading scholars on Nietzsche who argue that Nietzsche despised compassion and kindness. I think Nietzsche misunderstood Aristotle's Ethics which is not confined to certain social structures and is not eternal, fixed or based on belief in God . Aristotle keeps religion out of his philosophy. Nietzsche was not particularly interested in social issues, he dismissed these in a naive manner as part of a herd mentality. Human beings cannot completely rise above their group or tribe as Nietzsche proposed because we are hardwied to cooperate with one another and follow a common set of values. We don't have absolute freedom as the existentialists thought. In constructing our value systems we have to take into account the society in which we live , our CURRENT social structures , that doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to change them or that we blindly accept all the structures. Jesus was actually a counter cultural figure. He treated women as equals, attacked the hypocrisy of the current religion which used to stone women for adultery.

Isn't it irresponsible for a thinker like Nietzsche to be writing in such a way that it could be so easily misunderstood and used for evil purposes. I think a writer especially one who has such big influence and writing about morality, ethics and values should take great care - just like David Hume or John Stuart mill did- to write in a way that is clear, lucid and cannot be misconstrued. Why does Nietzsche almost unique among many of the famous thinkers have to write in such a highly ambiguous way. Even he himself was aware of the danger of that, I'm terrified from the use of my words that people will do at the future". I think that's highly irresponsible of someone in his position as a major intellectual of his time. And although I think he's a profound, deep and brilliant writer this aspect dimishes my admiration for him.
If you think his writings had nothing to do with Fascism why don't you watch the interview with J P Stern, a leading scholar of Nietzsche on YouTube. Bryan Magee is interviewing him. And he says that Nietzsche is to a certain extent to blame for the ideas in Fascism.

I have to disagree Nietzsche does not attack people's use of the values of compassion , love and kindness. He thinks they further the interests of the underdog. It's a classic elitist philosophy, thats why his views had such appeal to the Nazis and fascists in Italy and to right wing movements generally, who hate democracy, trade unions, socialism, all of which Nietzsche would regard as slave morality, herd mentality. Unlimited, unrestrained self assertion, even if it means sweeping away the weak and the unable is Nietzsche's values. It seems to me a complete inversion of Christian ethics and perhaps Buddhism and many ancient value systems. It's more like a philosophy for an elite or chosen few rather than the ordinary man.

It's been have known since Immanuel Kant that we have no direct access to knowing reality. But I don't think that's relevant to my point. I'm not saying that science is completely objective, but it's the best means we have of understanding the NATURAL world. Art and philosophy are ways of exploring the human condition.

The Will to power is only one among several theories which competes with Freud's will to pleasure and Victor Franks Will to meaning. Personally I think The will to meaning is a better description of the human condition. From my own experience I find myself driven by a desire for meaning rather than power or pleasure.

Science and the pursuit of knowledge have nothing to do with a will to power. They stem from man's survival instinct to master his environment. Mankind has a natural instinct to understand. "All people desire to know"- Aristotle.
What's this nonsense about science being a wiil to power.

Unfortunately I couldn't understand everything you said. Philosophy is a highly abstract subject!
To answer your question Im not religious. I believe in a secular ethics. You may not have noticed but I said in my previous piece that I think there is a grain of truth in Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity as a slave mentality. I think the notion in it of sin, hell and salvation is ridiculous, unhealthy and was probably used for social control and power , to instill fear in people. But Jesus' teaching about love, forgiveness, compassion, are good values. I don't agree that people are naturally altruistic and don't need value systems, religious or secular. They need a role model like Jesus, or other figures like mother Teresa. It's not easy to be a true christian, no more than it is to be a true Stoic or a true Buddhist or a very good person. These value systems set high standards of virtuous behavior for people to aspire too. Human beings in reality ,as any modern psychologist will tell you, are a mix of good and bad. We all have our dark side, our animal nature and as Jung described our repressed feelings manifest themselves in sinister ways such as a lust for power or scape goating certain groups of people , like the Nazis for the Jews. Why is it that most of us get excited by violence, rape, murder. cruelty, love watching war films, etc? Now these ancient value systems whether it's Stoicism, Christianity or Buddhism are are a call to humanity to aspire to our higher , more human , rational nature , to transcend that wild animal in us and aspire to a more noble and humane way of life. "The Man without ethics is a wild beast." - Albert Camus. Of course it takes great courage, strength of character, to live according to these values and many, arguably most people fail to consistently live up to them. How many times have we all hurt or let down another person ? Of course it's easier to argue like Nietzsche does that all these ethical values upon which the great civilizations were based are part of a slave or herd mentality and dismiss them. It's trendy nowadays in this age of the anti hero and nihilism where many people believe in nothing, or are confused, to attack all traditions , in postmodernism where all value systems are seen as having a hidden agenda, where human nobility and human reason which was valued for thousands of years is not valued any more or downgraded. instead we prefer a Monty Python approach to morality, a debunking of all that is noble and great in the human spirit

I think Nietzsche is overrated. There's more videos on him than any other thinker on many channels. Perhaps he's an attractive thinker because he's so provocative and radical but that does not make him wise. I think there's far more wisdom in Buddhism and Eastern philosophy and Stoicism and Epicureanism than there is in Nietzsche who seems to have drove himself insane in his Philosophical project.

There's a Mistake in my above piece . It as Nietzsche's sister who passed his writings to the Nazis.

I Know quite a lot about Nietzsche. I have studied his philosophy at Degree level and I know for sure that he despised Christianity and all it's values and he also despised nearly all secular ethical systems prior to and during his time. He also attacked science as being motivated by a similar life denying or some other negative impulse. How radical can you get in your thinking. You mentioned Freud. Freud did not attack science. He wanted to make his psychoanalysis scientific. Postmodernism does not in my opinion undermine the basis of empirical science. If we were to follow Nietzsche's value system society would have to abandon compassion and kindness and pity because they're a slave mentality and we wouldn't be able to trust the whole scientific enterprise because he attacks that as well. If it wasn't for science we would be still living in caves. He's also ant- democratic so we would have to abandon democracy as well which is what happened in Nazi Germany for whom Nietzsche was their philosopher. Nietzsche's daughter passed his writings onto the Nazis and Mussolini gave Hitler a copy of Nietzsche's writings.
Now I know Nietzsche wasn't an anti semite or a racist and I agree with his critique of the herd mentality in Christianity and other systems. However human beings by instinct are hard wired to follow a group, for evolutionary reasons it was necessary for survival for humankind to fit in and conform with his tribe throughout the history of homo sapiens. I think Nietzsche's understanding of human psychology is rather amateurish as was most 19th century psychology which was not a rigorous science like it is today.
I'm aware that empirical science has been shown to less reliable than it was previously thought. That's why most scientists would say that their theories are not watertight but are based on the evidence available and are open to being revised.

I still think it makes perfect sense to talk about the individual. The term is used widely in public debate, as well as academia. And it makes perfect sense to criticize a thinker or an opinion as being too individualistic. I think this discussion has digressed from my key point and that is that In my opinion Nietzsche is mistaken in his contempt for the time honoured values of compassion and kindness. He doesn't just analyze them and the role they play he has contempt for them which seems a misguided and prejudicial view. It seems absurd that a thinker such as Nietzsche can eschew thousands of years of philosophical wisdom , not just particular philosophers but the whole tradition of philosophy since the ancient Greeks. He attacks it for being otherworldly and life denying. I don't see how Aristotle's ethics which are grounded in empirical evidence and common sense is other wordly. Aristotle also does not , unlike Christianity or Kant , base his ethics on a set of rules, but it's about cultivating a good character.

What do you mean by "the individual is a social creation"? In most philosophy books I've read about existentialists, Nietzsche is listed amongst them. Post modernism came lond after Nietzsche's death. I've never heard Nietzsche described as a postmodernist. In fact the latter is probably a reaction against thinkers like Nietzsche and other existentialists who regard their ideas as the unique product of the thinker. I think this doesn't disprove my point that values and morals are not matters merely of individual concern but are also social issues. When Nietzsche attacks a time honoured virtue like compassion he is expressing his own personal prejudice against a value he personally doesn't like, but that's irresponsible and flawed philosophy because philosophy as it has been done by many famous thinkers , based on empirical observation, data, evidence, research, and treating the individual in the context of society, not as some purely Nietzschean fantasy of some superman who can rise above the rest of humanity.

Thanks for your reply to my blog but I'm afraid I couldn't understand everything you were saying. I think there is a grain of truth in Nietzsche's attack on Christianity as being a slave morality. Personally I think virtue ethics based on Aristotles ethics is a far better system. However I do think that Nietzsche is mistaken in attacking the virtues of compassion and virtue. Modern psychology would disagree with Nietzsche on this point. It is well documented that when people show compassion and kindness (and pity is an emotion associated with these) they feel happier in themselves and indeed they spread happiness around them whereas the contrary is the case that when people behave selfisly , without compassion they feel unhappy and damage their relationships with others.
The fundamental problem with Nietzsche , as with some other existentialists is that they are too individualistic in their thinking. Aristotle said, "Man is a social animal". It does not make sense to talk about morals and values, in relation to the individual as an separate entity but only in the context of him/her as a SOCIAL being, a part of a community. That's why Aristotle's ethics and his politics are one big interlinked system, not separated from one another. Compassion and kindness are fundamental ways in which humans interact positively with one another. Values and morals are not private issues , as Nietzsche would have it, merely of concern to the individual and chosen or discarded at the whim of an individual, they are social concerns , part of the fabric of society. Compassion is rather like a glue that bonds a community together and creates a more humane and happier society without which it would be a very cold place.

[reply="Protagoras;[/b]

How does one distinguish proper philosophy from just a whole lot of ideas. There must be a right and a wrong way of doing philosophy. A series of Ideas are not the same as philosophy.

In my opinion compassion which is at the heart of Christian and Buddhist ethics is what brings people together, without it the world would be a very cold place. I think when you talk about hypocritical attitudes it's do gooders who think they're very good people but are not really, but the problem is not with the virtue of compassion itself its the weakness within some human beings who cannot live up to the virtues.

Perhaps one reason for Nietzsche's popularity is his very provocative and radical ideas , but that doesn't make him a wise thinker. Some philosophers especially in the English speaking world don't classify him as a philosopher at all , but rather as a writer. His thinking based on a series of aphorisms and metaphors seems to lack a logical rigour of thought. I thought the definition of philosophy was supposed to be logical or rational argument.

So are you saying that if I feel pity watching my wife dying from cancer and feel compassion for her that's a weakness, it's not good way to feel. What kind of a world would it be if these virtues were held in contempt as Nietzsche would seem to advocate. I think it would be like the law of the jungle or dog eat dog. It's perfectly possible to be a life affirming , free spirited, uninhibited person as Nietzsche upholds and also be a person full of compassion and kindness towards others.

sometimes I wonder why Nietzsche is so popular, so influential , is it because he's so provocative, radical, and easily misinterpreted. He seems to be unique among philosophers in that he attacks every tradition and thinker in the history of western thought. Some thinkers especially in Anglo American tradition don't even regard him as a philosopher, but just a writer. There doesn't seem to be any coherent social, ethical or political set of values or structures in his thinking . I think his philosophy is only of relevance to the life of an individual, it couldn't be applied to society. A Nietszean worldview would be anarchy, devoid of ethics, and of science, religion or political systems. He tries to psychologize everything , but how can we trust his conclusions if they're not based on empirical evidence, data and hard facts. Just dreamt up from his own head . His genealogy of morals , explaining ideas in terms of their historical development to explain morality is probably flawed.

Thanks Erik for your reply. Some very good points there. But I still think there's a huge gulf between the teachings of Jesus and the kind of misogynistic, anti semitic, homophobic, authoritarian, puritanical Christianity that emerged when the Catholic church became very powerful in the middle ages. Now of course you need to distinguish it from the Protestant church which goes back directly to the teachings in the gospels and rejects the authoritarianism of the Catholic church and all the puritanical theological ideas that were added to it throughout the ages , eg misogony , which actually comes from Thomas Aquinas via Aristotle who thought women were inferior. And as we know Jesus condemned those who were about to stone a woman for adultery. So the issue is not that straightforward . As for democracy , that began in ancient Greece before Christianity. And furthermore Christianity was heavily influenced by ancient Greek thought . I think Nietzsche would like to overlook these aspects.

Perhaps Nietzsche's ferocious attack on Christianity was his reaction against the puritanical Victorian Church of his time which was anti semitic, misogynistic, anti gays, authoritarian and conservative. This is as Kierkegaard said a warped hypocritical version of Christianity, not the true message of Christ. I personally think Nietzsche had an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, he was hostile to democracy and modern science also which he claimed strangely were products of a Christian culture which seems absurd.

Nietzsche died before the Nazis came into existence. In relation to My point which I made earlier Nietzsche's target for attack is Christianity because it's a slave morality but my point is that the values Nazism espouses is closer to a slave morality than Christianity is. It is all about obedience, self pity, resentment, conformity, hatred of life , all the things which Nietzsche accusses Christianity of. Jesus however was a strong, courageous, independent minded person.

Aristotle's Ethics which is one of the most influential in western thought is not otherwordly, it is secular and it has experienced a revival in the 20th century. Nietzsche seems to overlook that. Maybe Nietzsche was reacting to the puritanical Victorian society he lived in which is why he came up with such radical ideas about morality and culture generally. Nietzsches historicity in his approach to all ideas which was common in the 19th century is now, like Marx's approach regarded today as mistaken.

We are part animal but we are also human with consciousness and intellect which differs us from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are the only species who are capable of constructing a moral system and exercise control over our animal instincts through our reason. I think Nietzsche has a bias against Christianity and indeed the whole tradition of Western morality even secular morality stemming from Socrates He sees it as a product of Ressentiment. I disagree it is a natural human instinct to try to create a better society through the exercise of human reason and to develop a system of Ethics which began with Socrates. Nietzsches critique of the otherworldlynes of Christianity may have a point but what about secular morality which is not otherwordly.

I didn't finish
. In all religions including paganism there is a belief in another world of spirits. It derives from the human instinct to find meaning in this world. To believe that there exists something above and beyond mere material, meaningless, perishable, decaying reality which gives meaning and a sense of permanence and immortality to human life. Nietzsches view that it was a product of a slave morality is wrong.

Although it's true Nazism doesn't appeal to an otherworld that's because it's a political movement. However Hitler was like a Messiah figure for his followers, the Fuhrer means saviour and there was an appeal to a kind of Utopia, a new Order, a racially pure Aryrian society. I think the same impulse to escape from a reality , a world they despise, for an other illusory reality supposedly better than this world is at work in Nazism similar to religious fanaticism. The difference is that Nazism as a materialist creed sees this Utopia as being attainable in this world.
I don't agree with Nietzsche that Christians hate this world. In all religions including pagani

Martin Luther King and Ghandi. All these people were battling against oppression but did not resent their oppressors. The main platform on which the Nazis gained popularity in Germany was they appealed to the widespread RESENTMENT of the German people at their harsh treatment in the Versailles Treaty. To say as Nietzsche does ( and I'm sure he has many followers) that Christianity is based on resentment I think it'd be more accurate to apply it to Nazism and Fascism and other such racist and hate filled movements. They both thrived amongst the dissafected, resentful elements in society, herd morality as Nietzsche calls it, and their leader Hitler was an outcast, a failed artist , a racist bigot, full of hatred, anger and resentment against the system, against jews, slavs, and anyone who disagreed with him. He even said he hated ordinary people. I would have to disgree with Nietzsche because Christianity preaches love, forgiveness, compassion and these are the behaviours of mentally strong people who have risen above their resentments, anger and so on not herd or slave morality which is closer to Fascism and Nazism.

Religious moral values are not just about binding a group they are to offer an ethical code for living. The reason I think Stoicism is a better alternative as an ethical system is because it's values are more conducive to a happy or flourishing life. There is some valuable wisdom in Christianity which was of course influenced by Stoicism but I think it's weakness is that it's not based on the goal of flourishing or excellence.