I will try to explain what Neitzsche is saying about Jews using some selections from his work. My previous answers were deleted, and I opened a meta-discussion about them: here and here.
I will only leave the relevant passages this time: Walter Kaufmann, translation, p. 68:
Today when suffering is always brought forward as the principle argument against existence, as the worst question mark, one does well to recall the ages in which the opposite opinion prevailed because me were unwilling to refrain from making suffer (sic in translation) and saw in it an enchantment of the first order, a genuine seduction to life.
Perhaps in those days--- the delicate might be comforted by this thought--- pain did not hurt as much as it does now; at least that is the conclusion a doctor may arrive at who has treated Negroes (taken as representatives of prehistoric man) for severe internal inflammations that would drive even the best constituted European to distraction--- in the case of Negroes they do not do so. (The curve of human susceptibility to pain seems in fact to take an extraordinary and almost sudden drop as soon as one has passed the upper ten thousand or ten million of the top stratum of culture; and for my own part, i have no doubt that the combined suffering of all the animals ever subjected to the knife for scientific ends is utterly negligible compared with one painful night of a single hysterical bluestocking.)...
Next let us move to page 30
The Latin malus (beside which I set melas) may designate the common man as the dark-colored, above all as the black-haired man ("hic niger est") as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy, who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color; Gaelic at any rate, offecs us a precisely similar case--- fin (for example in the name Fin-Gal), the distinguishing word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant the blond-headed, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants.
The Celts, by the way, were definitely a blond race; it is wrong to associate traces of an essentially dark-haired people which appear on the more careful ethnographical maps of Germany with any sort of Celtic origin or blood-mixture as Virchow still does: it is rather the pre-Aryan people of Germany who emerge in these places (the same is true of virtually all Europe: the suppressed race has gradually recovered the upper hand again, in coloring, shortness of skull, perhaps even in the intellectual and social instincts: who can say whether modern democracy, even more modern anarchism and especially that inclination for "commune" for the most primitive form of society, which is now shared by all the socialists of Europe, does not signify in the main a tremendous counterattack--- and that the conqueror and master race, the Aryan, is not succumbing physiologically, too
The Jew appears on pages 33-34, regarding the slave revolt:
... The knightly-aristocratic value judgements presupposed a powerful physicality, a flourishing, abundent, even overflowing, health, together with that which serves to preserve it: war, adventure, hunting, dancing, war games, and in general, all that involves vigorous free joyful activity.
As is well known, the priests are the most evil enemies --- but why? Because they are the most impotent. It is because of their impotence that in them hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions, to the most spiritual and poisonous kind of hatred. The truly great haters in world history have been priests; likewise the most ingenious haters: other kinds of spirit hardly come into conservation when compared with the spirt of priestly vengefulness. Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent have introduced into it--- let us take at once the most notable example. all that has been done on earth against "the noble", "the powerful", "the masters", "the rulers" fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed priestly vengefulness. It was the Jews, who with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good=noble=powerful=beautiful=happy=beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence) saying "the wretched alone are the good; the poor, importent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone--- and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the accursed, and the damned!"
The inversion of morality is attributed to the Jews, but the words are of Jesus' sermon on the mount. The attribution of "priestly" qualities to Jews is in no way any sort of praise. It makes them:
If you read this passage, it answers your question. I will not say anything more, as everything I said about this so far has been deleted and censored.
I will say that the persistence of Nietzsche (and Heidegger) in classrooms is a stain on philosophy, and the field is damned to irrelevance as long as they are taught or respected.
