Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche serves as one of the book’s central philosophical authorities, although he appears primarily through quotations, paraphrases, and conceptual contrasts rather than as a participant in the narrative. His ideas supply the book with a theory of power: the strong person risks security in pursuit of expansion, while the slave values survival, submission, and the preservation of an existing life. The same framework is then extended into a political mythology opposing the Last Men of Old Humanity to the Superman-like HyperHumans of New Hyperborea.

Identity and Philosophical Framework

Nietzsche is presented as the thinker who most sharply distinguishes the will to power from the will to life. In the book’s account, the slave is defined by valuing continued existence above the struggle for mastery, whereas the master accepts danger and sacrifice in order to expand power. The text uses this opposition to interpret the relationship between the 1% and the 99%: the wealthy elite are described as possessing an unusually intense will to power, while the majority are portrayed as willing to submit because they prefer ordinary life, relationships, and survival to the risks and brutality of ruling.

The book also invokes Nietzsche’s distinction between master morality and slave morality. It quotes his claim that the desire for self-preservation can arise from distress and from a restriction of the deeper instinct that seeks an expansion of power, an instinct willing to take risks and make sacrifices. This quotation is treated not as an isolated psychological observation but as an explanation of political subordination. The mass of people are said to possess the numerical strength to overthrow the 1%, yet remain dominated because they lack the ambition, force, and appetite for conflict that the text associates with mastery.

The Last Man and the Superman

Nietzsche’s image of the Last Man becomes the book’s principal diagnosis of passive modern humanity. The Last Man asks what love, creation, longing, and a star are, then blinks; the world has become small, and the Last Man makes everything smaller while surviving like an ineradicable flea. The book uses this image to condemn a culture of diminished aspiration, identifying it with people who want only negative freedom and ridicule large dreams as utopianism.

Against that figure stands Nietzsche’s Superman. A quotation describes humanity as a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman, suspended above an abyss, and insists that mankind is something to be overcome. The book transfers this language into its imagined future of New Hyperborea, where HyperHumanity will arise and HyperHumans will appear godlike in comparison with the “apes” of Old Humanity. Nietzsche therefore functions as the philosophical bridge between a critique of complacent human beings and the book’s radical promise of biological, intellectual, and civilizational transformation.

The contrast is explicitly evolutionary and political at once. HyperHumans cannot permit Old Humanity to hold them back, and the book declares that the “dinosaurs” must perish. Conservatives are then associated with Old Humanity and the Old World Order, while the proposed future is aligned with intelligence, meritocracy, knowledge, and the abolition of inherited systems of domination. Nietzsche’s language gives the argument its dramatic scale, turning a political program into a struggle over what humanity itself should become.

Ressentiment and Slave Morality

Nietzsche’s analysis of ressentiment is used to explain the emotional force attributed to Donald Trump’s supporters. The book cites an account of Trump voters as resentful of cultural elites in government, universities, and coastal centers, with revenge never far from their political desire. It then connects that resentment to the slave revolt in morality: ressentiment becomes creative by defining itself negatively, looking outward and saying no to whatever appears antagonistic or oppressive.

The book’s interpretation is deliberately paradoxical. Trump supporters are said to resent elites while voting for and defending a billionaire plutocrat who belongs to the Ownership Class. Their anger is therefore redirected downward rather than upward. The text argues that many white conservatives accept rule by a wealthy elite so long as racial hierarchy places Black and Hispanic people beneath them. Their imagined revolt is not an uprising against masters but a struggle to preserve a higher position among slaves.

This argument also explains the book’s hostility toward conservative claims of anti-elitism. The text insists that Donald Trump belongs simultaneously to the overarching 1% and to a conservative political and media elite. When he claims to fight “the elite,” the claim is interpreted as a manufactured conflict with liberal political and media elites, not as opposition to plutocratic power itself. Nietzsche’s terminology thus becomes a diagnostic instrument: conservative ressentiment is presented as reactive, exclusionary, and incapable of the affirmative transformation associated with genuine mastery.

Political Polemic and Moral Reversal

The book repeatedly uses Nietzschean categories to invert conventional political self-descriptions. Right-wing actors who portray themselves as rebels are characterized as supporters of the existing elite, while the radical left is identified as the force that actually seeks to overthrow plutocratic rule. The distinction between slave revolt and resistance to domination is central: resentment alone does not constitute liberation, especially when it is directed at people still lower in the social hierarchy.

This framework is intensified by the book’s moral language. Right wingers are accused of opposing justice, merit, and virtue, while mocking social-justice activism as virtue signaling. The text recasts their conduct as vice signaling and connects it to religious and political images of depravity. It also states that human and civil rights are the dividing line between left and right, presenting the positive-liberty State as responsible for curing right-wing beliefs. Nietzsche’s critique of reactive morality is therefore absorbed into a broader polemic that treats political disagreement as a conflict between affirmation and degradation, knowledge and ignorance, or human liberation and enslavement.

The book’s repeated invocations of Nietzsche also expose a tension within its own rhetoric. Nietzsche is used to condemn the submissive majority, to attack resentment, and to celebrate the overcoming of humanity, but his vocabulary is placed inside an argument for a highly interventionist positive-liberty State and a meritocratic social order. The result is not a neutral exposition of Nietzsche’s philosophy. It is a selective political appropriation in which will to power becomes a justification for intelligence, radical transformation, and the destruction of inherited structures.

Will, Revolution, and Narrative Significance

Near the conclusion, the book contrasts Arthur Schopenhauer’s wish to deny the expression of the will with Nietzsche’s wish for the will’s fullest affirmation, then asks what the reader seeks. This opposition condenses Nietzsche’s role in the work. He represents neither resignation nor withdrawal from existence, but an imperative to affirm, expand, overcome, and create. The question turns philosophy into a demand for decision, linking the will to power with the book’s call for revolution.

Nietzsche’s influence also shapes the book’s treatment of Donald Trump and the Ownership Class. The text condemns Trump supporters for “slavishly” propping up billionaire power, yet it explains that submission through the very distinction between will to life and will to power. The elite are imagined as masters because they risk, dominate, and accumulate; their supporters are imagined as Last Men because they accept subordination in exchange for status, racial superiority, comfort, or the preservation of familiar life.

As a result, Friedrich Nietzsche is less a character than the book’s recurring philosophical chorus. His terms organize its account of hierarchy, explain why resentment can imitate rebellion, supply the negative image of the Last Man, and authorize the aspiration toward the Superman. Through him, the book frames politics as a contest over the direction of human energy: whether it will remain trapped in fear, resentment, and diminished desires, or be converted into the power to create a radically different humanity.