Nietzsche – the Saxon of Calvinistic (approximately Puritan) descent, who disliked ‘otherworldsmen’ (otherworldly individuals) from a standpoint that believed, unlike Marx, in the ‘overman’, but avowedly not in terms of the kind of otherworldly disposition that can arise from a Catholic ethnic bias. On the contrary, his will-affirming ‘overman’ has more in common with what are these days called ‘alpha males’ than with the kind of ‘omega male’ who, being properly male (subjective), is given, by contrast, to an idealistic if not transcendentalist orientation above and beyond ‘the world’, as of ‘the worldly’.
Anybody who is effectively before and behind ‘the world’ is unlikely to be idealistic, much less transcendentalist, but rather fundamentalist if not materialistic in what amounts to an autocratic disposition at axial variance with anything even remotely theocratic.
You can see how Hitler was able to capitalize on Nietzsche, affirming the will in contrast to any Schopenhaurean rejection of it from a kind of Buddhist standpoint given to sedentary quietism if not exactly to an outright transcendentalism.
With Hitler, there is far more Nietzsche than Schopenhauer, despite his evident respect for the latter. There is also, one might say, far more Hegel than Marx, but that is another story, since ‘natural selection’ through the survival of the fittest is not necessarily compatible with the evolution of geist, or mind, in the historical process. Rather is it a throwback to some more barbarous process having its roots in female dominion under heathenistic criteria stemming not only from nature but, more fundamentally, from Supernature, that metachemical fieriness in back of the watery world and effective fount of autocracy.
Hegel points towards Spengler and therefore to a new and ultimate theocracy compatible with the evolutionary consummation of geist. Compared to this, both the alpha-rejecting Schopenhauer and the alpha-affirming Nietzsche are irrelevant. So is the geist-rejecting Marx. Only that which affirms the Omega leads on, via Spengler and de Chardin, to Social Theocracy and the possibility, thereof, of ‘Kingdom Come’, the true resolution of the historical process whereby geist ‘comes out’ as that which, in the guise of metaphysics, most characterizes the consummation of the evolutionary struggles within the aforementioned historical process. Such a paradoxical ‘coming out’ of true religion implies the end of ‘the world’ and all that which is in dialectical conflict, as between female and male elements engaged in reproduction.
In Germany, National Socialism, a largely South German ideology deriving from founders and leaders of mainly Catholic descent, foundered on the rock of North German Protestantism, as any pretensions towards a new theocracy which may have initially characterized the movement were duly compromised by autocratic predilections more traditional to the Prussian-dominated North. Idealism succumbing to materialism, transcendentalism to fundamentalism, the SA to the Army, with only a late revival, during the latter stages of the war, of Party idealism in the guise of the SS, by then severely compromised by circumstances and more militaristic than had formerly been the case. Inevitably, the Third Reich collapsed under pressure of its own paradoxes, not unlike Nietzsche himself, whose Superman remained hamstrung by attributes more befitting the Superfeminine and the triumph, at the expense of geist, of the Will. War always leads backwards, and the Nazi ‘sell out’ to the Prussian-dominated military ensured that, in Germany, National Socialism succumbed to the ‘dogs of war’ and thus to autocracy at the expense of theocracy, in the Nietzschean struggle with Marxism, a resurgent Alpha against a debased omega, the effective omega point of ‘the world’, ‘overman’ against ‘underman’, that neither Hegel nor Spengler would have foreseen, much less endorsed. But then theory and reality are two entirely different things, and what came out of a struggle against Marxism and the injustices of the Versailles Treaty cannot be defined solely in relation to itself. Nor, I should add, can it be regarded simply as a pro-theocratic movement without reference to historical pressures and processes which, if truth be told, were its primary reason for existence. Such ‘theocratic’ pretensions, attributed to people like Himmler and Hess, both of Catholic descent, were merely the tip of an iceberg the vast bulk of which descended to depths of socialistic darkness undreamed of by those at the top, not excepting, in some respects, the Fuhrer himself.