Great men and reform

I think Nietzsche swerved down the wrong path when in his later work he suggested that great men should speak only to other great men and not to the nation of philistines. The problem with individualism, libertarianism and anarchism, is that it misses or overlooks the categorical imperative of group selection in the creation of the ethics of the group and the individual.

It is understandable that a genius like Nietzsche would become embittered by the German culture which feared and ignored many of its geniuses, including himself, but great men also need to affirm the sociobiological ties that bind them to the group and to their nations.

The ruin of Western culture came from both ignorance and from those who consciously wished to destroy it so that they might rise to power over the weakened nations. Can reform spring from what is already corrupt? Nietzsche didn't think so, but does not all reform spring from corruption?

Western culture will be reformed at first by those who often do so in spite of the culture. Men of strong will prevail in their work at least, and the work later helps reform the culture. The resistance they encounter can even at times push them forward with that old “to hell with you” spirit, even if it occasionally destroys them. But the work of great men essentially benefits the group, even when they think they are speaking only to other outsiders.  To try to ignore the group is hopeless and irresponsible, over time even great men and their works cannot survive or evolve on their own without the group.