What a surprise, indeed.

What I wrote here is the good in many ways.

YES. In my zealous devotedness to put down Nietzsche from too high pedestal I went too far regarding your thought.

Often I claim Nietzsche is primarily provocateur and then philosopher. Well, that is worthy too.
Came to my mind…Music of forgetting is harmonious to music of forgiving. Interesting: for-get….for-give

Thanks, Mik. I understand your critique of Nietzsche. And yet there’s more to him in my mind. What I wrote here is the good in many ways.
Pax,
Ed Curtin/Mr Z

Russian children’s heads are being ripped off. Russian blue cats are being cooked in antisemitic Ukrainian oil. All three Russian-made cars in Thuringia are being hunted down in order to puncture their tyres. Even Stalin is brazenly smeared as being the world’s biggest mass murderer…
Imagine checking passports before letting people in a cafe 😀 . How dumb can you be?

https://i.postimg.cc/gJPjqDPn/elon-of-musk-introduction.jpg

The ‘right’ people should not be involved in propaganda because they should refrain from manipulation.

You like Nietzsche, I don’t. I respect him, use some of his things, even his concept of Ubermensch that I found very profound and daring. And Dionysian/Apollonian. Well, Machiavelli also said some wise things, still he is rightfully detested by majority.
On the other hand I almost despise Nietzsche, particularly his idea of revaluation of all values. His negative reputation as a dark and depressing thinker, as you said, is well placed. I’ve heard ones a discussion where there was a question: should we take some (many) Nietzsche’s claims seriously. They came with answer that he would probably laughed out loud.
There are tons of different understandings of him, not encouraging. That shows he is intriguing but that there is also a huge question what did he actually said, aside from provocation. There is a book How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the 21st-Century Left. I wonder what a concoction is this (ones I’ll give it a try, young writer made some good stuff already).
Nietzsche was at the beginnings (proto-postmodernist) of the biggest problem most modern philosophy have, it’s being lost in particularities, lost in the possible. It abandoned enquiry of general, universal, necessary. Metaphysics became a thing of the past and we got endless analyses of postmodern condition, bastardization of Kant’s Copernican turn, some even attempted to reduce philosophy to logic. All in all “the most elaborate mental gymnastics ever conceived” (E.Curtin).
To some extent I can understand why Nietzsche did what he did, but I have hard time understanding what is the purpose of many renowned philosophers of recent times. Too many times it looks to me as l’art pour l’art. That is not necessary bad in itself, if there would also be some genuine creativity, that would produce something New, not just simulations and simulacra. I said Purpose…science discarded Aristotle’s Final Cause (purpose) altogether, it seems to me philosophy is close.

Humanity is in very precarious situation today, we are on the path into Abyss. Nietzsche might have been revolutionary at the time. But he is, beside other problematic and controversial things, a proponent of individualism and that is one of the biggest reasons why we ended in increasing misery. Those ones who didn’t lose hope are looking for solutions, unfortunately looking back to tradition, past, is very common, but futile. In some way we will have to reinvent the wheel to escape Abyss. Some new Marxes are needed who will have the balls to say: That is what we propose. To all those red-scare fear mongers, I’m not pimping communism. I’m talking about a philosophy that would emphasize society as much as individual because that is necessary, we are social creatures. A philosophy that would bring back something really worthy of hoping for.
Consequently we might get some happiness too…cool.

Kant:”“Rules for happiness: something to do, someone to love, something to hope for.”

Well the literal meaning or derivation will be “that which is propagated”, so it could be neutral, although no doubt soon took on a non-neutral, and indeed pejorative meaning.

According to https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=propaganda the Catholic Church started it, so draw your own conclusions.  😉 
(I write as a recovering former Catholic).

That’s very interesting Victor; thank you.