True Left

Nietzsche was an advocate of European colonialism, seeing it as a way to solve the overpopulation problem, pacify the rebellious working class, and rejuvenate the decadent European culture. European expansion and global domination were part of his "great politics". He noted that in colonies, Europeans often act as ruthless conquerors, unconstrained by Christian morality and democratic values, which he saw as a liberated, healthy instinct.[145]

We should note that the German term Nietzsche uses for “predatory nature” [Raubtier-Natur] appears in other Nietzschean contexts without any pejorative sense. In many writings from the 1880s, the beast of prey [Raubtier] is contrasted with the despised herd, the domesticated animal that human beings have become under the leveling influences of the Judeo-Christian heritage and a politics of democracy. We must evaluate similarly Nietzsche’s identification of the good European with the criminal, which also often has a positive valence in Nietzsche’s works.48

Other texts from the 1880s indicate that these colonialist criminals and predators are in fact the “good Europeans.” Sometimes the European colonial project is justified in terms of a biological analogy. In the notebooks from 1888, Nietzsche claims:

The right [Recht] to punishment (or to social self-defense) has in essence become the word “justice” [Recht] only through a misuse: a right is acquired through contracts—but self-protection and self-defense are not based on a contract. A people, at least, ought to consider with just as much justification its need for conquest, its craving for power, as a right, whether it be with weapons, with trade, commerce, and colonization—for example, a right to growth. A society that rejects war and conquest for all times and instinctively is in decline: it is ripe for democracy and shopkeeper regimes. (Nachlass 1888, 14[192], KSA 13.379)

In this passage, Nietzsche contrasts democracy and the shopkeeper mentality—a frequently used derogatory term in Zarathustra—with aggressive colonialism, interpreting European expansion as a natural right to self-preservation. In other remarks, Nietzsche uses a historical view to discuss the desired course for European domination of the world.

Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We were ready to throw our forces into the scales for the preservation of the British Empire; and all that, mark you, at a time when, to tell the truth, I feel much more sympathetically inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant islanders. Later on, the Germans will be pleased that they did not make any contribution to the survival of an out-dated state of affairs for which the world of the future would have found it hard to forgive them. We can with safety make one prophecy: whatever the outcome of this war, the British Empire is at an end. It has been mortally wounded. The future of the British people is to die of hunger and tuberculosis in their cursed island. - Adolf Hitler, 4th February 1945

Spain, France and England had all weakened, weakened and exhausted themselves in this futile colonial enterprise. The continent from which Spain and England gave birth, which they created piece by piece, has today acquired a completely independent way of life and completely selfish views. Even so, they were just an artificial world, without a soul, culture, or civilization of their own; and judging from that point of view, they were nothing more than dirt.  - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945

The United States and Australia afford good examples. Success, certainly - but only on the material side. They are artificial edifices, bodies without age, of which it is it is impossible to say whether they are still in a state of infancy or whether they have already been touched by senility. In those continents which were inhabited, failure has been even more marked. In them, the white races have impose their will by force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants has been negligible. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945

The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where imposition by force was attempted, the results were even more disastrous, and common sense, realizing the futility of such measures, should preclude any recourse to their introduction. One solitary success must be conceded to the colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred, a hatred that urges these peoples, awakened from their slumbers by us, to rise and drive us out. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945

Bataille was one of the first to denounce the deliberate misinterpretation of Nietzsche carried out by Nazis, among them Alfred Baeumler. In January 1937, he dedicated an issue of Acéphale, titled "Reparations to Nietzsche", to the theme "Nietzsche and the Fascists.[5]" There, he called Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche "Elisabeth Judas-Förster," recalling Nietzsche's declaration: "To never frequent anyone who is involved in this bare-faced fraud concerning races."[5] Domenico Losurdo ridicules the idea that an "intellectually rather mediocre woman" managed to manipulate and derail interpretations of Nietzsche for decades and inspire political movements encompassing millions of people. He dismisses such idea as unsustainable conspiracy theory noting that "there is no shortage of unsettling and horrific passages in Nietzsche's writings".[150] Due to his complex views and occasionally contradictory comments on these matters, the idea of Nietzsche as a predecessor to Nazism and fascism remains controversial and debated among scholars (see: Nietzsche and fascism). Owing largely to the writings of Walter Kaufmann and French postwar philosophers, Nietzsche's reputation improved and today he usually is not linked to Nazism as he was in the past. Detractors note that authors such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Arthur de Gobineau also had complex views on matters of politics, nation and race that were incompatible with Nazi ideology on numerous points, but their influence on the Third Reich is still not dismissed as a misunderstanding.[151]

Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

National Socialist Nietzsche critics

As early as 1937, Oscar Levy pointed out that the image of Nietzsche was divided under National Socialism. There were critics of Nietzsche who vehemently rejected the philosopher as incompatible with National Socialism.

In Nietzsche heute (1935), Hans Goebel turns against Rosenberg, Giese and Baeumler. He wants to prove that Nietzsche cannot be the mastermind of the Nazi state, since for him there was only the good European. Nietzsche was also an enemy of Christianity and German nationality. Where Nietzsche wants the superman, the Reich promotes "healthy and strong Volksgenossen". Nietzsche lacks any positive conception of the state.

Curt von Westernhagen said that Nietzsche had been wrongly portrayed as a pioneer of Nazi ideas, but rather that the goat had been turned into a gardener. Nietzsche was not only not an enemy of the Jews, but the most skilful lawyer they had ever had. (Westernhagen: Nietzsche, Jews, anti-Jews! Weimar 1937)

Wilhelm Michel, who in Nietzsche in our Century (1939) tries to defend Christianity from the perspective of a Catholic existentialism, comes to a rejection of Nietzsche's philosophy and all attempts to make him the philosopher of the Third Reich. Michel identifies Nietzsche's critique of morality and religion as Nietzsche's Marxist body of thought. (Michel: Nietzsche in our century. Berlin 1939, p. 38)

Martin Löpelmann (Nietzsche National Socialist? In: NSEn, Vol. 2, No. 28 of 23 December 1933, pp. 497f.) rejected Nietzsche as a National Socialist guide or intellectual hero. He knew how to rave about power and strength, because he never had them himself. He blames Nietzsche for hostility towards Germanism, pro-Jewish sentiments and opposition to socialism. He had "never had any understanding for the workers' question."

The philosopher and educator Ernst Krieck explained the National Socialist reception of Nietzsche, quoting an article in the French newspaper Le Temps: "All in all: Nietzsche was an opponent of socialism, an opponent of nationalism and an opponent of the idea of race. If one disregards these three schools of thought, he might have made an excellent Nazi." [5]

...

In the 1930s, Oscar Levy wrote essays on Nietzsche and National Socialism, partly under the pseudonym Defensor Fidei, in which he distinguished the philosopher from a National Socialist interpretation. Levy pointedly: "With these views, it is quite certain, Nietzsche would be in a concentration camp or in the misery of emigration today" (Oscar Levy [Defensor Fidei]: Ein Nazi contra Nietzsche (1937), in: Levy 2005, p. 260)

...

Nietzsche was rehabilitated in France and Italy in particular. Deleuze, Guattari, Laruelle, Bataille, Montinari, and others stood up for Nietzsche and saw a falsification by the National Socialists. After 1945, German philosophy had a hard time with Nietzsche. From the 1980s onwards, a new Nietzsche boom began, which made Nietzsche the philosopher about whom the most published is today. Current Nietzsche research in Germany almost unanimously assumes that Nietzsche was misused, e.g. Hans-Martin Gerlach.

Nietzsche-Rezeption im Nationalsozialismus – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

This pretty much highlights how it is flat-out logically impossible for WNs to win the ethical debate. If they go with the position that migration is wrong (which they need for criticizing migration by "non-whites"), then they cannot avoid the conclusion that "whites" wronged "non-whites" first, and hence have no authority to complain. The only logical way to avoid incriminating themselves is to go with the position that migration is not wrong, in which case they have no reason to complain. Either way they are screwed.

Their only recourse is to declare that it is OK when "whites" do it but not OK when "non-whites" do it ie. ingroup/outgroup double-standards a.k.a. "It's OK to be white!" In other words, to declare that they do not care about ethics.

What explains the rise of Adolf Hitler?

In this talk to his Beijing high school students, Jiang Xueqin explains that Hitler was a manifestation of the German obsession with the unity of will. 

After the humiliating defeat of World War I and amidst the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic, Germans sought salvation and redemption in their civilization, especially the music of Richard Wagner and the philosophy of Frederick Nietzsche.   They longed for an "ubermensch" to emerge, and Hitler rose to the occasion.   

References:
1.  The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer
2.  The Ring Cycle by Richard Wagner
3.  The Genealogy of Morals by Frederick Nietzsche
4.  Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley
5.  The Speeches of Adolf Hitler