I think I've already had the discussion about assumptions and fuckups in this thread, but it bears repeating. "The Herd" is a common and well-understood reference to certain forms of group behavior, one with a long history before and after Nietzsche, a history in which Nietzsche plays, at most, a minor role. In fact, Nietzsche's usage of the term is itself an example of direct borrowing. He brought no new meaning to the phrase, he simply continued its use in the same context in which it had always appeared and in which it continues to be used to this day. "The herd" has never been a summation of a peculiarly Nietzchean viewpoint, but rather a common shorthand for certain patterns of social interaction. You're extrapolating a whole ideology out of two words, and that's sloppy thinking of the worst sort.
Bottom line: what I've suggested in this thread is 'Nietzschean' only in the sense that its basic method is dependent upon moving beyond taboos and social shibboleths to get at an issue on its own terms, rather than in terms framed by the dominant society. In other words, it's 'Nietzschean' only to the extent that ANY thought independent of socially received interpretations (you know, basically any viewpoint that diverges from the mainstream) is 'Nietzschean.' In practical fact, it's as close to 'independent' thought as is humanly possible, as it was arrived at by personal analysis free of reliance upon any single source for interpretive slant.
And here I thought you were intelligent enough to understand the difference between a rhetorical device and actual compulsion. Obviously, I was wrong.
Depends on cases. Intelligent, capable people ought to exert quite a bit of control over those who are less capable - that's the basic principle behind all successful systems of government. The reverse, of course, is not true, which is why we're edging toward planetary extinction with the mob in the democracies enthusiastically pushing from behind.
