Now consider quotes like these:
"The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men." "Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength … strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative." "I welcome all signs that a more virile, warlike age is about to begin, which will restore honor to courage above all!" "Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain?"
Read this as poetry for your own enjoyment if you wish. But these "poems" both can be and have been used to justify atrocities.
I'd like to remind you that even Jesus has been used to justify atrocities. It's not the words of men that justify things, it's the authority others give them and those who distort their words for their own purposes. Don't blame the messengers, blame yourself, blame us, blame our weaknesses for falling for the same thing over and over again.
Which is a well-known logical fallacy. Look up, "No true Scotsman."
Back in the real world, people who read him, thought they understood him, and didn't agree with your interpretation, proceeded to literally kill people by the millions. Justifying it by what they understood him to be saying.
I have no particular reason to trust your interpretation over theirs. And when it comes to my best judgment, I find him wrong again and again. So I don't really care which interpretation I'd find more palatable.
So far, I haven't seen a clear exposition of what Nietzschd meant by these phrases, if not the obvious thing. The guy quite clearly had an obsession with concepts of "great men".
People have thought that some people are more fundamentally valuable than others in some moral is-ought sense for most of existence, there's nothing new or enigmatic about it and most reasonable people are done with it.
Example: https://rafal.io/posts/nietzsche-slave-morality.html
Please point me to the correct interpretation of Nietzsche, because I'm apparently failing to find it.
Or maybe we all who are not fans of him understand what it seemed Nietzsche wanted to get at just fine and are not interested in sugar coating the consequences of such belief sets.
> I think you'll witness first hand what happens when weak people rule and excellence is abandoned for equality.
Question: do you consider Stalin a weak or a strong person in this context?
I don't consider people that terrorize others to be strong, that's what weak people do.
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10109.html
If you want a single source for a "correct interpretation" (a term that's hard to take seriously), read that book.