Fascist philosophers

Are there any philosophers for fascism or nat soc that try to build the ideology up from a solid grounding in the way that liberals, monarchists, socialists, communists, anarchists, or ancaps do?

Other urls found in this thread:

counter-currents.com/2016/03/schopenhauer-and-hitler/
counter-currents.com/2016/03/schopenhauers-critique-of-democracy/
counter-currents.com/2016/03/genius-religion-and-compassion/
getrevising.co.uk/resources/fascism1
archive.org/details/SelectedWritingsByJoseAntonioPrimoDeRivera
archive.org/search.php?query=Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera&and[]=mediatype:"texts"
fundacionjoseantonio.es/doc/Antologia_en_espanol.pdf
rumbos.net/ocja/
media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415736413599-1.pdf
media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415712411857-0.pdf
media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1425200965269-0.pdf
ia801308.us.archive.org/7/items/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation/Gottfried Feder - The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation.pdf
m.youtube.com/watch?v=X77dkiDpBoM
sunwheel.politicallyincorrect.work/the-myth.html
8ch.net/pdfs/res/3.html#q1559
ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/5147-what-is-fascism/
ironkike.org
ia800307.us.archive.org/6/items/MyAutobiography/MyAutobiography.pdf
resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/DeRivera-SelectedWritings.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwijvYq7oM3NAhUC7yYKHfxoC0MQFggLMAA&usg=AFQjCNHo37g9oBUtmtqBqEXi5FEwXm6GuA
google.com/url?q=http://www.resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/DeRivera-SelectedWritings.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwijvYq7oM3NAhUC7yYKHfxoC0MQFggLMAA&usg=AFQjCNHo37g9oBUtmtqBqEXi5FEwXm6GuA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_de_siècle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorelianism#Sorelianism_and_Fascism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_executions
8ch.net/pol/res/6241778.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

Nietzsche gets flak here for the fact that Nihilism gets cited by degenerates to justify their self centered and self destructive behavior but reading Thus Spake Zarathustra has help shed off aspects of liberal conditioning/morality that are hard to even realize are there. When you shed away any 'morality' that diminishes your chances of survival, you learn to naturally understand the ideas that do increase your survival (aka fascist ideas).

Also Nietzsche wasn't devoid of putting value on anything, he takes time in Thus… to speak about the warrior ethos, the strengthening of ones self (or as he uses "the body"), and of course the power of Will.

The important point, and the one nihilistic degenerates miss, is once you understand Nietzsche's point, you then must up your own understanding of morality and philosophy, and what you have left to work with is to understand the actual physical reality that you live in. Also you have to understand your own limitations in that understanding. This opens up not only baseline fascist ideas but also traditional and spiritual ideas that are key to one, and one society's own survival.

Nietzsche's own will-based system of values doesn't say that you need to increase your chances of survival and his master/slave dialectic isn't very strongly fascist.

Whoops, master/slave moralities, not dialectics

The Decline of the West by Spengler doesn't specifically pertain to fascism, but I consider it an important work that helped define the intellectual zeitgeist of the right-wing at the beginning of the 20th century when reactionary movements were developing in response to the dissemination of communism. It's almost 1000 pages of dense, grandiolquent writing so be warned. Don't read the abridged version because it's really not Spengler's words.

Lots of people are fans of Evola but I find much of his work unnecessarily abstract, cabalistic, and ultimately useless. Ride the Tiger is short and probably his seminal book so just read that instead of all the others.

Obviously read Mein Kampf by that austrian painter guy. Also to better understand the Third Reich specifically I recommend the historical non-fiction books Hitler's Revolution by Richard Tedor and Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny by Stolfi.

Also read Culture of Critique because why not.

Schopenhauer and Nietsche are Hitler masters and he is their student.

No.

Fascism as an ideology was compiled from various, often competing, movements, ideologies and sources. Its very nature meant that its final end was not some societal reorganisation, but something indescribable.

I'd say Fascism began with George Sorel's Reflections on Violence which is a good transistion from leftypol as Sorel was a Marxist. Albeit an unorthodox one. He realised that most socialist movements just get co-opted by the bourgeois through democracy and that the workers needed irrational myths, violence and an elite to gain power. Sorel's critique of capitalism was based on the fact it was decadent, not that it was exploitative.

Sorel inspired a fusion of syndicalism and royalism in France which became termed "National Syndicalism", spread to Italy and Spain and became Fascism.

Under Mussolini Giovanni Gentile drew up a sort of build up of fascism from solid grounding you talk about. But honestly it had very little impact on practical Fascist politics, nor do I think its really an honest presentation of the ideas which drove Fascism. It was drawn up after Mussolini had seized power by a famous philosopher looking to use the new regime as a vehicle for his ideas. Its more like propaganda.

National Socialism came from a different intellectual climate with even vaguer influences. Racial science, volkisch woo and social Darwinism were the publicly presented later ideology of the NSDAP. But its all pretty pleb-tier tbh.

Oswald Spengler has been mentioned is is well worth the read. I think if any book can be considered the Redpill is The Decline of the West.

I'd say Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political is the core text of Fascism. Demolishes so much bullshit in so few pages and sets out a clear justification for dictatorship of the charismatic leader.

For whole our lives, we've been told "national socialism was just a kooky pseudo-ideology cooked up by Hitler".
It's not true at all.

National socialism in on very strong philosophical standing, and has many great thinkers behind it.

Schopenhauer's influence on Hitler and the Third Reich
Part 1: counter-currents.com/2016/03/schopenhauer-and-hitler/
Part 2: counter-currents.com/2016/03/schopenhauers-critique-of-democracy/
Part 3: counter-currents.com/2016/03/genius-religion-and-compassion/

Since NatSoc ( I personally feel like fascism is materialistic) isnt materialistic but spiritualistic everything in the weltanschauung (here is also why i think fascism and natsoc differs since in my mind fascism is just an ideology) is abstract and philosophical.

I have been thinking about reading the foundation of the 19th century but it so goddamn long. I have read freedom and democracy by him and he absolutely btfo libertarians in that book.

It's something that I've noticed that seems to end up being "fascism is whatever it needs to be when convenient" sophistry that relies on the give-and-take of language.

I will however look at a few in this case (though I've already noticed a few in here that aren't really very fascist aside from a "feel")

maybe not in explicit words but really your own survival, and ability to achieve your highest position really go hand in hand.


The morality defined and maintained by the strong isn't fascist?

C'mon man.

Stop being such a lazy, low effort faggot. Read that bitch.

or rather, repelling morality that diminishes your survival, is a positive correlation with your ability to assert your will.

I'm currently reading Hitler's war, the prince and the culture of critique so it's not that im lazy its just hard to start reading such a large work.
Im also working with translating Gottfried Feder - Manifesto For The Abolition Of Interest Slavery to swedish.

No. Truth is not systematic. Fascism is anti-systematic and anti-intellectual.

...

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera's Collected Writings is a great ideological treatise on fascism. Jose Antonio founded the Falange in Spain and was captured and executed by the commies shortly after the military uprising in '36.

Giovanni Gentile

Friendly reminder that National Socialism and Fascism are not the same thing and should not be confused for the same thing. It should be important to know how to tell them apart.

That said, I don't suppose there's a handy storage of literature from the people lost behind the shadow of Adolf, Mussolini, Franco, and even Oswald? I know that even with the world's obsession with Hitler, nobody knows anything about the people who ran the NSDAP before he became a prominent figure. Would be nice to amass literature from such sources.

As far as I can tell with Fascism, it's adaptive dictatorship. If NatSoc is the enthusiastic camp councilor to Fascism's drill sergeant.

Any pdf?

They pretty much are the same thing.

The whole point of the differentiation between the master and the slave moralities is what these moral systems are looking at.

The master morality is looking at the results and effects of events things, while slave morality looks at causes and intentions behind events and things. Each builds up their own system from there. The master morality thus builds on what is useful and calls it good, which is what defines the moral system in the first place. The slave morality's ressentiment of the master's morality system happens because the slave is looking at whether or not the intent of these useful things is in and of itself desirable.

The strong-willed master thus builds, the weak-willed slave evaluates if what the master has built should remain and is the driving force behind changing it.

Definitely not.

I wanna bump this a second time.

Definitely yes. The only differences came from historicsl and practical differences in cultures of Germany and Italy. These differences were not essential.

I know he's not technically a fascist but
==C S L E W I S
==S

==L
==E
==W
==I
==S

No. C.S. Lewis was a loser. Only Christfags like him.

National Socialism is the confining of Socialism within the sphere of the nation. What is Fascism?

No it isn't.

Isn't this is an incomplete way of looking at things? Considering only "results and effects", or "causes and intentions" will always give you only partial information.

If you want a simple (I mean VERY simple) introduction to Fascist ideology. Look up this link: getrevising.co.uk/resources/fascism1

There's literally a module on fascism in the British curriculum.

Mussolini's Fascism is just one form of Fascism. It was a counter weight ideology to the rising Communism in Europe. The only thing in common Fascism has with National Socialism is class cooperation.
National Socialism was Authoritarian while Italian Fascism was Totalitarian, this is the main difference between the two. Their economic models are different as well.
National Socialism wasn't just political system with economic model, it was also about following the Nature's Law and rediscovery of the German spirit.
You could say that these ideologies both influenced each other and have plenty similarities, but everyone researching the subject will come to a conclusion that National Socialism is so much more.

A Jewish Estonian developed the theory of lebensraum. kek.

And what do you think it is?


Bueno.


When will this newspeak disappear?

Nobody has mentioned Giovanni Gentile yet? He is the fascist philosopher. Gentile used Hegel's ideas of unity and absolute idealism to argue for an all-embracing state. From what I've read he is as readable as Hegel, which is to say he's very difficult to read. He wrote the Philosophy of Fascism in 1928. He also wrote a critique on communism before that. Mussolini took a lot from Gentile and Gentile was killed by commies himself. Carl Schmitt is also a important figure who took a very realist attitude towards extrajudicial power, though he was expelled from the German National Socialist party in '36.

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche weren't exactly fascists as they were critical of just about every single political view and had no political leanings. It's safe to say that they hated communism as much as fascists though, and through Evola you can link them up with many other conservative thinkers.

To say that I oversimplified Nietzsche there would be an understatement.

This looks pozzed as hell. Mussolini was lynched by communist partisans. Hardly a representation of "Italians", right?

I second this request.

fucking namefag

Francis Parker Yockey probably comes closest, although reading Decline of The West is a required prerequisite. Imperium is even addressed "To the hero of the Second World War".

Oh, right, Holla Forums has thread ID's so I dont need to. lel

They are lol, you should read the textbook.

Fascism was also influenced by the most prominent cultural movement around Italy that time:
It took from D'Annunzio,from Marinetti,etc.


Thanks user.I've some read to do


On this i want to share some new shit i found out:
-partisans in Italy were at best 80.000,they were so few,the "liberated" cities were because the italian/german soldiers retired more at nord to defend it.They become 800.000 with the years kek
-the one who killed Mussolini was an italian/english spy, Walter Audisio it seems
-we were so full of spy/traitor our peace treaty in 1947 has en entire point that says we can't judge nor kill those who helped the Allies since the 1940

What I am saying is that fascism is necessarily representative of the nation it is manifested in. But it stems from the same essential foundation. The differences between one nation and the other is the difference in the respective histories and nature of the people, not essential differences.

He was not jewish though. He had baltic german ancestry with french origins.
Btw his book "The myth of the 20th century" is pretty good

I'm not sure what to make of the BNP or EDL. If I was British, I'd look into them first hand. How does anybody tell the difference between genuine intent and controlled opposition? In France, Greece, Poland, where's the advance? Golden Dawn in particular, I remember when they had all the attention until a year or two ago, and then the leaders were undemocratically arrested and there was a media blackout. I know there use to be a trip from GD who'd come around with updates, had his own GD news site, but there's no idea what happened to him.

...

gentle bump

kek

this thread was bretty gud. I'll give it a bump

Giovanni Gentile & Alfred Rosenberg

Oswald is not THE redpill. He has his faults; for example, he pretty much rejected a genetic definition of race. Same with Evola, same with Yockey. Only Rosenberg combined spiritual sense of race firmly grounded in biological reality. Oswald Spengler has his faults.

Plato's Republic is pretty much fascist thought in the sense that it agrees with fascist principles. You have clearly defined classes, you're born into your class, you have class cooperation. Social mobility exists, meritocracy can be a thing. Justice, however, is the greatest virtue and overrules any notion of equality.

This didn't help him much, either. Oswald was just too screwed. England was has been a central Jew hive for centuries, he really had no chance. If only.

Not the collected writings but a good selection of his work:

archive.org/details/SelectedWritingsByJoseAntonioPrimoDeRivera

Also:

archive.org/search.php?query=Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera&and[]=mediatype:"texts"

Hobbes was a good enlightenment period philosopher, but he would hardly be fascist. I guess he would be a proto-fascsist since he opposed liberalism with all his being.

Thank you

Evola does not outright reject the genetic definition of race, he simply recognizes multiple levels for the issue, and the materialist one, obviously, in a traditionalist optic, doesn't get the same place as the transcendent spiritual one. There is a "bodily" race, which according to him corresponds pretty much with the anthropology of the time, but there's also a most important spiritual one.

Frankly, looking at the times we live in, I'd say he is pretty much correct with this. A modern European might still not be a negroid in a materialistic biological conception, but spiritually speaking he is approaching that sort of level, just take a look at your average millennial.

In spanish here:
fundacionjoseantonio.es/doc/Antologia_en_espanol.pdf

More texts wrtten by him:
rumbos.net/ocja/

Alfred Rosenberg. It's literally OP. Lot's of disinfo and kikes itt. Don't be fooled. Only one man was hung at nuremburg for his ideas.

National Socialism is derived from Natural Law (Dharma), so you can read literature as far back as the Bhagavad Gita up to works like the Myth of the 20th Century, Lightning and the Sun, and The Ultimate Avatar.

final bump

Hold on! While what user here claims is true, other ideologies have competing branches, especially in the left. They are more divided than any other political movement since they don't work, even on paper (sorry, not sorry Holla Forums) so they fight each other on minute differences, even despite these details all entail complete failure. No matter what variation of communism/socialism. Proper conservatism is also divided into various schools of thought. Naming these would be redundant.

The third position, in all its forms, is a 3-legged stool, of which its politics represent three fundamental tenants, or legs: i) a strong spiritual and mystical ethos built on warrior myth , ii) an economy which props up the working and middle-classes by allowing for members of the lower castes to prove their value as an aspect of society (worker, soldier, artist, family member, student…) and move beyond class boundaries, and finally iii) an indestructible family to carry on the traditions of the forefathers.

These three (warrior, worker and father) are what hold up the stool of the third position and form the superior race. They are not mutually exclusive, and a proper Ubermensch is master of all three vocations.

I been through all this fancy Holla Forums talk before so save your breath.

Giovanni Gentile is the best by far, he was even named the philosopher of fascism. Look up and read some of his work. The doctrine of fascism should be required Holla Forums reading. Gentile created an ideology that heavily influenced fascism called actualism, his longest book discusses this in great detail, also the manifesto of futurism is a good place to start as well as futurism influenced both fascism and actualism

You're full of shit or a leftist. Fascism had a strong intellectual presence, there even is the manifesto of fascist intellectuals. But of course your husbando Lenin said it was bad so you never bothered reading into it yourself

If that image means by "his people" in the sense communists and vengeful mobsters freed by the brave noble allies then it is correct

Essential books to understand NatSoc (Not only the philosophical aspect)
I made it easy for me and only included people who were in the NSDAP, since pre-NSDAP NatSoc ideology is a hot topic and very debatable.

Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler The Stalag Edition
media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415736413599-1.pdf

Hitler's Second Book - Adolf Hitler
media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1415712411857-0.pdf

Myth of the Twentieth Century - Alfred Rosenberg
media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1425200965269-0.pdf

The German State On A National And Socialist Foundation - Gottfried Feder
ia801308.us.archive.org/7/items/GottfriedFederTheGermanStateOnANationalAndSocialistFoundation/Gottfried Feder - The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation.pdf

Someone should do one for fascism and include links to the books.

nice hegelian twist at the end user

it is impossible to be spoonfed philosophy, you are attempting a criticism of a paraphrasing of a particular essay of nietzsche. read the geneology of morals yourself

Those who disagree haven't read him.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=X77dkiDpBoM

sunwheel.politicallyincorrect.work/the-myth.html

I've not read hegel or much philosophy to be honest. I do get the basics of the changes coming from within though.

...

Intended for

Thought that you had left OP. Nice to see that you are still here.

Do you actually think that works, (((dude)))?

Hopefully it works. I'm so fucking tired of people on Holla Forums saying that NatSoc=fascism.

Fascism is a form of National Socialism, you fool. The difference with Rosenberg and NSDAP was German people weren't as divided ethnically so they could operate together on a blood basis like a real national family instead if having to hide behind intellectual bullshit that denies the importance of genetic connection between folks. One is much closer to what we see in nature and it isn't even possible in America for example.

...

He's right though, the only people who are asspained and make a point about making the difference are in 99% cases just trying to avoid spooky name calling without any actual ideological substance.

Pontifex Klassen and Pontifex Hale.
8ch.net/pdfs/res/3.html#q1559

Saying NatSoc=fascism is like saying that a sweetie is the same thing as a mandarin.
That's the whole point though. If one actually reads what they stand for, the difference will become apparent.
NatSoc and fascism share many of the same enemies. But their solutions and end goal is vastly different.
99% on here just follows memes and watch basic documentaries. The 1% sees the difference clearly.

Jesus Christ, this is ignorance taken to the extreme.


ironmarch.org/index.php?/topic/5147-what-is-fascism/

...

ironkike.org

Gas yourself you fucking hooknosed circumsised kike scum

Not an argument lol.

Ironmarch has been a part of this board since the very beginning. Cry more kike.

and still we get fucktards like that canadian spic rato trying to discuss the republic as if they actually read it for more than 5 minutes and the lecture notes

Plato is essential to any understanding of politics

Literally the opposite. Mussolini heavily inspired Hitler.

National Socialism is an offshoot of Fascism, just as Fascism is an offshoot of socialism.

Mussolini started with Marx and combined him Nietzsche (people conveniently forget Mussolini was a socialist revolutionary), and then ripped the Marxist element out from under his philosophy once he had rooted it. Hitler just took it from there.

Skip about halfway down, to 'The Garden of Fascism'.
ia800307.us.archive.org/6/items/MyAutobiography/MyAutobiography.pdf

Man, imagine if Mussolini lifted…

No, no, guys, no, they both formed independently under different circumstances but towards the same end: combating Marxism. They may be similar in some aspects, being in close range allowed maybe some interlacing between the two, but one is not the offshoot of the other.

Also, Hitler did not create National Socialism or the NSDAP, he only exploded its popularity.


Mussolini had a weight problem he tried very hard to keep under wraps but couldn't quite maintain. I guess fortunately for him, all anybody noticed was how the weight just added to the dimensions of his face, and thus image.


I just saw this now. My post is redundant, still feel like bumping anyway for chance at additional sources.

Enjoy. Jose destroys liberal ideology in one fell swoop, truly a masterpiece.

resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/DeRivera-SelectedWritings.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwijvYq7oM3NAhUC7yYKHfxoC0MQFggLMAA&usg=AFQjCNHo37g9oBUtmtqBqEXi5FEwXm6GuA

Broken link. Would attach the pdf myself but muh file size. Try this

google.com/url?q=http://www.resist.com/Instauration/OtherPubs-20120723/DeRivera-SelectedWritings.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwijvYq7oM3NAhUC7yYKHfxoC0MQFggLMAA&usg=AFQjCNHo37g9oBUtmtqBqEXi5FEwXm6GuA

Also Fin de siècle is interesting to read into.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_de_siècle
Of course Plato and some other greek anti-democratic thinkers.
And then you have the usual: Alfred Rosenberg (in a way), Giovanni Gentile, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Wang Jingwei (chinese), Mussolini, Nietzsche (in a sense), Shoppenhauer, Heidegger (of course) and Spengler and even Wagner's publications.
You could argue that Georges Sorel is kinda a proto-fascist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorelianism#Sorelianism_and_Fascism

Disappointed in you, Holla Forums.
Giovanni Gentile is the answer, OP
Read his work 'The Doctrine of Fascism'

this

Stupid question, I know, but I'll ask:
How do you bear reading big e-books (500+ pages)? I'd like to read one or 2 that interest me very much, but the sheer size of those books makes me not read them at all.

Just call his name (BEWS) a few times and he'll show up, it works :^) no really, it does. At least when a Greek thread is around.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_executions
It was 10 of them.

Alright. Thanks

Bullshit. Mussolini (who's a total braggart and ass-clown – something I didn't really understand until after I read his autobiography) certainly popularized the term, but he most certainly wasn't any inspiration for Hitler and the NSDAP.

Fascism is just a kind of nationalism that uses corporatism for social welfare. It isn't all that interesting in itself. The NSDAP was much more pragmatically focused on the advancement of the German people free from exploitation than wedded to some kind of economic philosophy. In other words, they had it right.

The duty of the leaders of an ethnically bound nation are to protect and nurture the folk of that nation, just like a good king would. It is essentially acting with parental and fraternal responsibility towards your country. Marxist-style philosophy that doesn't even acknowledge the essential importance of natural blood bonds can never comprehend what's really needed and so has to pretend "Fascism", "National Socialism", etc are bloodless concepts like Communism, Democracy, and Free Market Capitalism are.

Because Italy had long degraded into mongrelization in the South, there was little hope for really uniting the blood. Hell, I think being a nation did them more harm than good, just like France. The much better people in Northern Italy certainly didn't benefit much from it.

You just don't have the right mindset toward understanding these things because your thoughts toward politics and philosophy are sterile and academic, like so many here.

Sort of, as they were reactions to the exploitation of their country by the global plutocracy (led, of course, by Jews). Marxism was just a covertly controlled front for making the anger against industrialism and capitalism into a pawn of these bankers. The Axis was a reaction against the capitalist-communist globalists, not just Marxism.


Yep.

Read: your average Italian.

Best way to is to keep a notebook, or text file, and keep extremely basic notes on intervals as you read.

Once you start losing interest, make a summarization of what you read so far and put it on your backlog. When you get a desire to pick it back up, reading what you wrote will allow you to quickly pick it up again instead of having to tediously skim what you've already read. If that desire to pick it back up never comes, then it probably wasn't worth the effort anyway.

And don't think it's not obvious this is a slide thread.

But if you're actually a Leftist, you may want to think a bit about why the richest, most exploitative capitalists in the world have consistently pushed and funded communism a la Jacob Schiff as well as all the globalist plutocrats like Gates and Soros. Whether it's communism, capitalism, or the UN and a merging of these two supposed antitheticals, the end result is exactly the same: globalist economic ruling power in the hands of a few elites.

Anarchism and Libertarianism seem like reactions to individualism, but, like Rosenberg correctly points out, they are paradoxically twins of universalism. It's only by realizing the importance of type, kinship, and actual diversity that we can have communities and nations safe from merchant aristocrat predations.

I wish this wasn't generally true.
There's a reason why his cult of personality around machismo was so successful. It wouldn't have worked in a Law of Junte type nation.

He was the only one killed just for his ideas and book. He's a modern Socrates.

Check out this thread:

It's been 8 years since I found Holla Forums and I'm still this new.
8ch.net/pol/res/6241778.html

protip government control isn't gommunizm.

Plato's Republic

Seriously

Plato's Republic.

It's written from the view of Plato's teacher, Socrates.
Socrates was basically a fascist fighting against a democratic country, Athens. Seriously, the guy everyone sees as the founder of western civilization was as close as it can get to actual fascism before it was "invented".

It has it all

nigger what
it's pretty obvious that the republic was plato's own conception
I've read the Republic

I wouldn't consider Nietzsche to be a fashy philosopher, he probably would have disapproved of National Socialism and labeled many of its aspects as slave morality.

People assume that hes fashy because of his 'ubermensch' idea, when in reality the qualities of the ubermensch dont match up with what Nazi-ism promotes as the ideal man. The ubermensch according to Nietzsche is a philosophically superior man, the ubermensch according to Hitler was a physically superior man.

Nietzsche himself was also highly critical of German nationalism.

The system most fitting Nietzsche's ubermensch is actually Anarcho Capitalism, as other systems will inevitably give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves (mentally speaking of course).

Nietzsche wasn't 100% approving of the master morality. He was pretty critical of the anglos for their extreme example of master morality at the time.

I even tried some asmr vids and its just not working. How much does tiredness affect performance at the gym? Never worked out after staying up all night.

Don't bother. Not sleeping -> low testosterone -> no muscle gains. Also you're tired so even though you feel good, you won't do much.

Ayn Rand?

i totally agree