In an interview, Madonna was once confronted with the fact that she had made two or three statements, all of which contradicted each other. And nowhere is this more clear than in his remarks on the aristocracy and their values, all closely associated with what is most noble. If the will to a system is a lack of integrity, then reconciling these two is tantamount to systematizing, and dangerously close to a Hegelian synthesis. On the face of it, and from a democratic perspective, this statement is highly problematic. Behind it is the assumption of at least a two-tiered society, with the herd clearly taking a subordinate role to the needs of the higher, aristocratic types.
Aristocrats are a more refined version of the barbarians in their shared valuation of egoism.
Instead of the dialectical movement of the state towards the achievement of each individual's unique self-freedom in the greater good, and greater freedom, of the State, Nietzsche seems here to advocate a society of higher types supported by those less able, less gifted. It seems then that myth, or ideology, must play a part in establishing the faith required for the mobilization of the herd. However, the Nietzsche constructed by isolating these above passages, and others like it, ultimately serves little purpose other than dumbing him down or making him appear fascist. Keeping this in mind as a framework, let's return to BE, where Nietzsche argues that out of a stern, heavily moralistic, Spartan society, circumstances will arise that make the old morality unnecessary. Though admitting that the strict, moral society was the mechanism for damming the flow that now erupts, he also states clearly that the second stage is greater than and therefore transcends the first.