Yes. I wonder, though if this is a rhetorical gesture on Nietzsche’s part, to seem to deny completely altruism. If we look at the situation differently for example if we place the value of obtaining and keeping power first, one does feel more energized and strong (including for the purpose of helping others …although not by design) than if we place “altruism” first. Altruism first dissipates the will. But Nietzsche sometimes hints that self-sacrifice is inevitable and unstoppable for those who attain to the level of masters.

It is interesting what you say, and also indicates that we should not see the dynamic tension between “culture” and “civilisation” as entirely oppositional. This reflects more of a tendency, rather, for energy to be absorbed either in one activity or the other. I am personally not offended by Leni Riefenstahl’s works, and find that, to my mind anyway, there really is a separation between art and State. The current trend is of course in the opposite direction — which is to become extremely hysterical about the possibility of moral contamination from politics, especially “fascism”. In my view, this is a strong sign that “civilisation” is considered far more important than “culture” anymore. People are shoring up their sense of self-worth by investing in “morality”, in the hope that that will be saved from whatever frightens them. But “culture” requires a different latitude of mind. In some ways, it seems that the Nazis did manage to create some “culture”, and I applaud you for recognizing it, especially regarding architecture — and, as you said, the very little burning lights.

But…………..(and this is a long but, which I have very little energy for, due to disposition and fatigue) I must insist that there was something more animating, more vivacious in Weimar art, which the Nazis thought corrupt. I am particularly admiring of Giorgio de Chirico’s atmospheric paintings, although his works have often been conflated with fascism. It seems that people lack the acuity to differentiate the energetic emptiness of grand architectural designs with anything but an adherence to fascism, rather than a complex critique of it, and acknowledgement of life in its complexity.

I will not currently stick my neck out even further to say that the Jews who maintain the greatest distance from Judaism are probably the best: I do not know enough to say this.

But what I am certain about is that in the current era “civilisation” is victor. Culture no longer matters, except in its diminutive form, as a back seat passenger, learning from “morality” in the same way that William Blake described the eagle learning from the crow. I think it is quite wonderous to observe — the march of what Nietzsche called “plebeianism”.

It is a very good question, although I have no idea about the filtering out of “more sensual, esoteric and qualitative associations”. In fact, if we are talking about Nietzsche, I think the opposite tends to occur.

But WHY talk about “”the opposite” as if there was a necessary schism between everything? I think what is fascinating about Nietzsche is that his philosophy is undivided — that is to say that his mind is “whole”. The style of mind-body dualism is completely absent, and so that there is no need to eschew what is esoteric.

On the other hand, what we term “rationality” might indeed be a commitment to think using only one part of our minds. It is very limiting, not just because we have to force a schism within ourselves to do so, but more importantly because, once we do this, we can only see on part of reality. We may well end up being sideswiped by something that is coming at us from a totally unexpected direction.