Burn me for that, but Nietzsche in advocating egoism has propelled anti-egoist tendencies within ones own nature and in politics, according to Zizek.

[u/Essa_Zaben]

/r/Robert_Walser/comments/1x3tfnz/what_im_going_to_say_will_be_really_controversial/

[u/Salty-Gas-1436]

Is see that is a phenomenom caused by people taking Nietzsche in strictly rational/dialectical terms, completely missing his critic of rationality itself. True egoism for Nietzsche isn't materialistic or calculated; it is vital and instinctive (like loving your mother, feeling hunger or having a favorite color); from this view, you're the measure of all things and everything that surrounds you becomes a part of your own psyche in some way, so serving a materialistic/pragmatic goal -any kind of metaphysics- is the opposite of Nietzschean egoism, and thus trying to grasp the essence of his philosophy in a purely rational way involves an anti-egoistical tendency from the very start.

[u/I-mmoral_I-mmortal]

Zizek's an idiot (not really, just talks shit and people believe him because they're uneducated) and so are most of the morons who read Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is certainly a friend of egoism, but not in the retard sense. We can see from WtP 957 that the ruling caste ought to pretend to be a proponent of the prevailing morality (cause all things profound wear the mask). And further still in BGE 260 Nietzsche details the strongest civilizations reconcile the classes correctly.

From WtP 957:

The question, and at the same time the task, is approaching with hesitation, terrible as Fate, but nevertheless inevitable: how shall the earth as a whole be ruled? And to what end shall man as a whole—no longer as a people or as a race—be reared and trained?...

...He, however, who has reflected deeply concerning the question, how and where the plant man has hitherto grown most vigorously, is forced to believe that this has always taken place under the opposite conditions; that to this end the danger of the situation has to increase enormously, his inventive faculty and dissembling powers have to fight their way up under long oppression and compulsion, and his will to life has to be increased to the unconditioned will to power, to over-power: he believes that danger, severity, violence, peril in the street and in the heart, inequality of rights, secrecy, stoicism, seductive art, and devilry of every kind—in short, the opposite of all gregarious desiderata—are necessary for the elevation of man. Such a morality with opposite designs, which would rear man upwards instead of to comfort and mediocrity; such a morality, with the intention of producing a ruling caste—the future lords of the earth—must, in order to be taught at all, introduce itself as if it were in some way correlated to the prevailing moral law, and must come forward under the cover of the latter's words and forms.

From BGE 260

There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man...

The higher type build bridges... Zizek's take is pretending Nietzsche's take is full blow sociopathic Ego. Zizek has an agenda.

Also the two passages above go nicely with BGE 200... the highest men appear at the same time the masses seek repose within the values of the higher man. And the Highest men come from those stock of complex diversity, which more often leads to a weak and confused man, because incapable of reconciling the antagonistic drives within.

[u/Germanico025]

I like fire, dont tempt me

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

You should probably say more, I’m intrigued but I don’t know what you’re getting at.

[u/Cautious_Desk_1012]

Nietzsche never advocated egoism

[u/EmotionalDebt9108]

Are yoy perhaps thinking of Max Stirner?

[u/Essa_Zaben → u/EmotionalDebt9108]

I read this critique of a critique in Zizek's Less Than Nothing, but the first rotation of a critique I don't know who it came from, but it well possibly could be him.