The Antichrist
{"WorkMasterId":5798,"WpPageId":271243,"ParentWpPageId":189661,"Slug":"the-antichrist","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/the-antichrist/","RelativeUrl":"theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/the-antichrist/","HasFullText":true,"RawHtmlLength":297884,"CleanHtmlLength":241774,"Kicker":"Philosophy Work","Title":"The Antichrist","Deck":"Nietzsche attacks Christianity as life-denying morality, ressentiment, priestly power, pity, and hostility to flourishing.","BackLink":{"Text":"Back to Friedrich Nietzsche","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/"},"AuthorCard":{"Label":"Author","Title":"Friedrich Nietzsche","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/","MediaHref":"","ImageSrc":"https://chrisdeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/friedrich-nietzsche-01-klassik-stoeving-portrait.jpg","ImageAlt":"Friedrich Nietzsche portrait by Hans Olde Stoewing","FilterTerra":"Western Europe","ClickText":"Friedrich Nietzsche","ClickHref":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/philosophers/friedrich-nietzsche/","Copies":["1844 CE – 1900 CE","Röcken, Saxony, Prussia","German philosopher of genealogy, perspectivism, tragedy, value creation, nihilism, and the critique of Christianity whose work reshaped modern ethics, aesthetics, psychology, and continental philosophy."]},"ContextCards":[{"Label":"Period","Key":"Period:4","Title":"Modern History","DateText":"1800 CE – 1944 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/"},{"Label":"Era","Key":"Era:11","Title":"Long 19th Century","DateText":"1870 CE – 1913 CE","Url":"https://chrisdeasy.com/theos/humanities/philosophy/eras-of-thought/philosophers-of-modern-history/philosophers-of-the-long-19th-century/"},{"Label":"Composition","Title":"1888 CE","Url":"","DateText":""}],"DateNote":"Written in 1888 CE and published posthumously in 1895; visible posthumous religion-critique status required.","GeoCards":[{"Label":"Region","Key":"Region:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita","Key":"TerraAvita:1"},{"Label":"Terra Avita Region","Key":"TerraAvitaRegion:3"},{"Label":"Modern Country","Key":"Country:DEU:1"}],"OriginalTitle":"Der Antichrist","Language":"German","DisciplineCards":[{"Label":"Primary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:philosophy-of-religion"},{"Label":"Secondary Discipline","Key":"Discipline:ethics"}],"Tradition":"Continental philosophy / Nietzschean critique","FullText":{"Title":"Full Text","Copy":"Public-domain full text from Project Gutenberg eBook #19322 .","Url":"","Label":"","Kicker":"","Cards":[]},"CoreThesis":["Nietzsche attacks Christianity as life-denying morality, ressentiment, priestly power, pity, and hostility to flourishing."],"Classification":{"AlternateTitles":"The Anti-Christ; Curse on Christianity","KeyConcepts":"Friedrich Nietzsche; perspectivism; genealogy; will to power; eternal recurrence; nihilism; value creation; master morality; slave morality; ressentiment; Dionysian; Apollonian; tragedy; death of God; Christianity; ascetic ideal; language; drives; body; science; morality; art; Zarathustra","Methodology":"Genealogy, aphorism, philology, cultural criticism, polemic, psychological diagnosis, literary-philosophical experiment, historical reconstruction, and critique of morality and religion.","Structure":"The page records an approved Nietzsche work with visible date, posthumous, unpublished, aphoristic, revised, embedded, or fragmentary notes where needed."},"Arguments":["Nietzsche attacks Christianity as life-denying morality, ressentiment, priestly power, pity, and hostility to flourishing."],"Influence":{"InfluencedBy":"Schopenhauer, Wagner, Heraclitus, Greek tragedy, Presocratic philosophy, Paul Ree, French moralists, philology, and nineteenth-century naturalism.","InfluenceOn":""},"Significance":["Included as one of the direct Nietzsche work pages approved for the Friedrich Nietzsche full-process update.","The work documents Nietzsche\u0027s influence on morality, nihilism, religion critique, aesthetics, language, psychology, genealogy, and continental philosophy."],"EvidenceNote":["Direct Nietzsche work page approved in the Friedrich Nietzsche update. The Will to Power, collected works, correspondence, notebooks, fragments, individual aphorisms, editorial compilations, modern translations, catalog rows, biographies, and scholarship remain evidence/Other Voices."],"MainSections":[{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Versions","BodyHtml":"\u003cdiv class=\"dz-philo__full-version-grid\"\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-version-card\"\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-provider\"\u003eProject Gutenberg\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch3 class=\"dz-philo__full-version-title\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #19322\u003c/h3\u003e\n \u003cp class=\"dz-philo__full-version-meta\"\u003eHtmlText · Imported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ca class=\"dz-philo__full-version-link\" href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19322\"\u003eOpen full version\u003c/a\u003e\n \u003c/article\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e"},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Core Thesis","Paragraphs":["Nietzsche attacks Christianity as life-denying morality, ressentiment, priestly power, pity, and hostility to flourishing."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Classification","Fields":[{"Label":"Alternate Titles","Value":"The Anti-Christ; Curse on Christianity"},{"Label":"Key Concepts","Value":"Friedrich Nietzsche; perspectivism; genealogy; will to power; eternal recurrence; nihilism; value creation; master morality; slave morality; ressentiment; Dionysian; Apollonian; tragedy; death of God; Christianity; ascetic ideal; language; drives; body; science; morality; art; Zarathustra"},{"Label":"Methodology","Value":"Genealogy, aphorism, philology, cultural criticism, polemic, psychological diagnosis, literary-philosophical experiment, historical reconstruction, and critique of morality and religion."},{"Label":"Structure","Value":"The page records an approved Nietzsche work with visible date, posthumous, unpublished, aphoristic, revised, embedded, or fragmentary notes where needed."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Arguments","Paragraphs":["Nietzsche attacks Christianity as life-denying morality, ressentiment, priestly power, pity, and hostility to flourishing."]},{"Kind":"FieldSection","Title":"Influence","Fields":[{"Label":"Influenced By","Value":"Schopenhauer, Wagner, Heraclitus, Greek tragedy, Presocratic philosophy, Paul Ree, French moralists, philology, and nineteenth-century naturalism."},{"Label":"Influence On","Value":"Heidegger, existentialism, Foucault, Deleuze, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, literary modernism, genealogy, value theory, and modern continental philosophy."}]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Significance","Paragraphs":["Included as one of the direct Nietzsche work pages approved for the Friedrich Nietzsche full-process update.","The work documents Nietzsche\u0027s influence on morality, nihilism, religion critique, aesthetics, language, psychology, genealogy, and continental philosophy."]},{"Kind":"TextSection","Title":"Evidence Note","Paragraphs":["Direct Nietzsche work page approved in the Friedrich Nietzsche update. The Will to Power, collected works, correspondence, notebooks, fragments, individual aphorisms, editorial compilations, modern translations, catalog rows, biographies, and scholarship remain evidence/Other Voices."]},{"Kind":"RawSection","Title":"Full Text","BodyHtml":"\u003cp class=\"dz-philo__section-copy dz-philo__full-text-source\"\u003ePublic-domain full text from \u003ca href=\"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19322\"\u003eProject Gutenberg eBook #19322\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003carticle class=\"dz-philo__full-text-body\"\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eProduced by Laura Wisewell and the Online Distributed\u003cbr /\u003eProofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTHE ANTICHRIST\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBORZOI POCKET BOOKS\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA complete list to date of this series of popular reprints, bound\u003cbr /\u003euniformly with a design and endpapers by Claude Bragdon, may be found at\u003cbr /\u003ethe back of this volume. One book will appear each month, numbered for\u003cbr /\u003econvenience in ordering.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTHE ANTICHRIST\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_by_\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eF.\u0026#160;W. NIETZSCHE\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_Translated from the German\u003cbr /\u003e with an introduction by_\u003cbr /\u003e H.\u0026#160;L. MENCKEN\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_New York_\u003cbr /\u003e ALFRED A. KNOPF\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCOPYRIGHT, 1918, BY ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_Pocket Book Edition, Published September, 1923\u003cbr /\u003e Second Printing, November, 1924_\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_Set up, electrotyped, and printed by the Vail-Ballou Press,\u003cbr /\u003e Binghamton, N.\u0026#160;Y._\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_Paper manufactured by W.\u0026#160;C. Hamilton \u0026amp; Sons, Miquon, Pa., and\u003cbr /\u003e furnished by W.\u0026#160;F. Etherington \u0026amp; Co., New York._\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eCONTENTS\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePAGE\u003cbr /\u003e INTRODUCTION BY H.\u0026#160;L. MENCKEN 7\u003cbr /\u003e AUTHOR\u0026#39;S PREFACE 37\u003cbr /\u003e THE ANTICHRIST 41\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eINTRODUCTION\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eSave for his raucous, rhapsodical autobiography, \u0026quot;Ecce Homo,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;The\u003cbr /\u003eAntichrist\u0026quot; is the last thing that Nietzsche ever wrote, and so it may\u003cbr /\u003ebe accepted as a statement of some of his most salient ideas in their\u003cbr /\u003efinal form. Notes for it had been accumulating for years and it was to\u003cbr /\u003ehave constituted the first volume of his long-projected _magnum opus_,\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;The Will to Power.\u0026quot; His full plan for this work, as originally drawn\u003cbr /\u003eup, was as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVol. I. The Antichrist: an Attempt at a Criticism of Christianity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVol. II. The Free Spirit: a Criticism of Philosophy as a Nihilistic\u003cbr /\u003e Movement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVol. III. The Immoralist: a Criticism of Morality, the Most Fatal\u003cbr /\u003e Form of Ignorance.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVol. IV. Dionysus: the Philosophy of Eternal Recurrence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe first sketches for \u0026quot;The Will to Power\u0026quot; were made in 1884, soon after\u003cbr /\u003ethe publication of the first three parts of \u0026quot;Thus Spake Zarathustra,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eand thereafter, for four years, Nietzsche piled up notes. They were\u003cbr /\u003ewritten at all the places he visited on his endless travels in search of\u003cbr /\u003ehealth–at Nice, at Venice, at Sils-Maria in the Engadine (for long his\u003cbr /\u003efavourite resort), at Cannobio, at Z\u0026#252;rich, at Genoa, at Chur, at\u003cbr /\u003eLeipzig. Several times his work was interrupted by other books, first by\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Beyond Good and Evil,\u0026quot; then by \u0026quot;The Genealogy of Morals\u0026quot; (written in\u003cbr /\u003etwenty days), then by his Wagner pamphlets. Almost as often he changed\u003cbr /\u003ehis plan. Once he decided to expand \u0026quot;The Will to Power\u0026quot; to ten volumes,\u003cbr /\u003ewith \u0026quot;An Attempt at a New Interpretation of the World\u0026quot; as a general\u003cbr /\u003esub-title. Again he adopted the sub-title of \u0026quot;An Interpretation of All\u003cbr /\u003eThat Happens.\u0026quot; Finally, he hit upon \u0026quot;An Attempt at a Transvaluation of\u003cbr /\u003eAll Values,\u0026quot; and went back to four volumes, though with a number of\u003cbr /\u003echanges in their arrangement. In September, 1888, he began actual work\u003cbr /\u003eupon the first volume, and before the end of the month it was completed.\u003cbr /\u003eThe Summer had been one of almost hysterical creative activity. Since\u003cbr /\u003ethe middle of June he had written two other small books, \u0026quot;The Case of\u003cbr /\u003eWagner\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;The Twilight of the Idols,\u0026quot; and before the end of the year\u003cbr /\u003ehe was destined to write \u0026quot;Ecce Homo.\u0026quot; Some time during December his\u003cbr /\u003ehealth began to fail rapidly, and soon after the New Year he was\u003cbr /\u003ehelpless. Thereafter he wrote no more.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Wagner diatribe and \u0026quot;The Twilight of the Idols\u0026quot; were published\u003cbr /\u003eimmediately, but \u0026quot;The Antichrist\u0026quot; did not get into type until 1895. I\u003cbr /\u003esuspect that the delay was due to the influence of the philosopher\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003esister, Elisabeth F\u0026#246;rster-Nietzsche, an intelligent and ardent but by no\u003cbr /\u003emeans uniformly judicious propagandist of his ideas. During his dark\u003cbr /\u003edays of neglect and misunderstanding, when even family and friends kept\u003cbr /\u003ealoof, Frau F\u0026#246;rster-Nietzsche went with him farther than any other, but\u003cbr /\u003ethere were bounds beyond which she, also, hesitated to go, and those\u003cbr /\u003ebounds were marked by crosses. One notes, in her biography of him–a\u003cbr /\u003euseful but not always accurate work–an evident desire to purge him of\u003cbr /\u003ethe accusation of mocking at sacred things. He had, she says, great\u003cbr /\u003eadmiration for \u0026quot;the elevating effect of Christianity … upon the weak\u003cbr /\u003eand ailing,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;a real liking for sincere, pious Christians,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;a\u003cbr /\u003etender love for the Founder of Christianity.\u0026quot; All his wrath, she\u003cbr /\u003econtinues, was reserved for \u0026quot;St. Paul and his like,\u0026quot; who perverted the\u003cbr /\u003eBeatitudes, which Christ intended for the lowly only, into a universal\u003cbr /\u003ereligion which made war upon aristocratic values. Here, obviously, one\u003cbr /\u003eis addressed by an interpreter who cannot forget that she is the\u003cbr /\u003edaughter of a Lutheran pastor and the grand-daughter of two others; a\u003cbr /\u003etouch of conscience gets into her reading of \u0026quot;The Antichrist.\u0026quot; She even\u003cbr /\u003ehints that the text may have been garbled, after the author\u0026#39;s collapse,\u003cbr /\u003eby some more sinister heretic. There is not the slightest reason to\u003cbr /\u003ebelieve that any such garbling ever took place, nor is there any\u003cbr /\u003eevidence that their common heritage of piety rested upon the brother as\u003cbr /\u003eheavily as it rested upon the sister. On the contrary, it must be\u003cbr /\u003emanifest that Nietzsche, in this book, intended to attack Christianity\u003cbr /\u003eheadlong and with all arms, that for all his rapid writing he put the\u003cbr /\u003eutmost care into it, and that he wanted it to be printed exactly as it\u003cbr /\u003estands. The ideas in it were anything but new to him when he set them\u003cbr /\u003edown. He had been developing them since the days of his beginning. You\u003cbr /\u003ewill find some of them, clearly recognizable, in the first book he ever\u003cbr /\u003ewrote, \u0026quot;The Birth of Tragedy.\u0026quot; You will find the most important of all\u003cbr /\u003eof them–the conception of Christianity as _ressentiment_–set forth at\u003cbr /\u003elength in the first part of \u0026quot;The Genealogy of Morals,\u0026quot; published under\u003cbr /\u003ehis own supervision in 1887. And the rest are scattered through the\u003cbr /\u003ewhole vast mass of his notes, sometimes as mere questionings but often\u003cbr /\u003eworked out very carefully. Moreover, let it not be forgotten that it was\u003cbr /\u003eWagner\u0026#39;s yielding to Christian sentimentality in \u0026quot;Parsifal\u0026quot; that\u003cbr /\u003etransformed Nietzsche from the first among his literary advocates into\u003cbr /\u003ethe most bitter of his opponents. He could forgive every other sort of\u003cbr /\u003emountebankery, but not that. \u0026quot;In me,\u0026quot; he once said, \u0026quot;the Christianity of\u003cbr /\u003emy forbears reaches its logical conclusion. In me the stern intellectual\u003cbr /\u003econscience that Christianity fosters and makes paramount turns _against_\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity. In me Christianity … devours itself.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn truth, the present philippic is as necessary to the completeness of\u003cbr /\u003ethe whole of Nietzsche\u0026#39;s system as the keystone is to the arch. All the\u003cbr /\u003ecurves of his speculation lead up to it. What he flung himself against,\u003cbr /\u003efrom beginning to end of his days of writing, was always, in the last\u003cbr /\u003eanalysis, Christianity in some form or other–Christianity as a system\u003cbr /\u003eof practical ethics, Christianity as a political code, Christianity as\u003cbr /\u003emetaphysics, Christianity as a gauge of the truth. It would be\u003cbr /\u003edifficult to think of any intellectual enterprise on his long list that\u003cbr /\u003edid not, more or less directly and clearly, relate itself to this master\u003cbr /\u003eenterprise of them all. It was as if his apostasy from the\u003cbr /\u003efaith of his fathers, filling him with the fiery zeal of the convert,\u003cbr /\u003eand particularly of the convert to heresy, had blinded him to every\u003cbr /\u003eother element in the gigantic self-delusion of civilized man. The will\u003cbr /\u003eto power was his answer to Christianity\u0026#39;s affectation of humility and\u003cbr /\u003eself-sacrifice; eternal recurrence was his mocking criticism of\u003cbr /\u003eChristian optimism and millennialism; the superman was his candidate for\u003cbr /\u003ethe place of the Christian ideal of the \u0026quot;good\u0026quot; man, prudently abased\u003cbr /\u003ebefore the throne of God. The things he chiefly argued for were\u003cbr /\u003eanti-Christian things–the abandonment of the purely moral view of life,\u003cbr /\u003ethe rehabilitation of instinct, the dethronement of weakness and\u003cbr /\u003etimidity as ideals, the renunciation of the whole hocus-pocus of\u003cbr /\u003edogmatic religion, the extermination of false aristocracies (of the\u003cbr /\u003epriest, of the politician, of the plutocrat), the revival of the\u003cbr /\u003ehealthy, lordly \u0026quot;innocence\u0026quot; that was Greek. If he was anything in a\u003cbr /\u003eword, Nietzsche was a Greek born two thousand years too late. His\u003cbr /\u003edreams were thoroughly Hellenic; his whole manner of thinking was\u003cbr /\u003eHellenic; his peculiar errors were Hellenic no less. But his Hellenism,\u003cbr /\u003eI need not add, was anything but the pale neo-Platonism that has run\u003cbr /\u003elike a thread through the thinking of the Western world since the days\u003cbr /\u003eof the Christian Fathers. From Plato, to be sure, he got what all of us\u003cbr /\u003emust get, but his real forefather was Heraclitus. It is in Heraclitus\u003cbr /\u003ethat one finds the germ of his primary view of the universe–a view, to\u003cbr /\u003ewit, that sees it, not as moral phenomenon, but as mere aesthetic\u003cbr /\u003erepresentation. The God that Nietzsche imagined, in the end, was not far\u003cbr /\u003efrom the God that such an artist as Joseph Conrad imagines–a supreme\u003cbr /\u003ecraftsman, ever experimenting, ever coming closer to an ideal balancing\u003cbr /\u003eof lines and forces, and yet always failing to work out the final\u003cbr /\u003eharmony.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe late war, awakening all the primitive racial fury of the Western\u003cbr /\u003enations, and therewith all their ancient enthusiasm for religious taboos\u003cbr /\u003eand sanctions, naturally focused attention upon Nietzsche, as upon the\u003cbr /\u003emost daring and provocative of recent amateur theologians. The Germans,\u003cbr /\u003ewith their characteristic tendency to explain their every act in terms\u003cbr /\u003eas realistic and unpleasant as possible, appear to have mauled him in a\u003cbr /\u003ebelated and unexpected embrace, to the horror, I daresay, of the Kaiser,\u003cbr /\u003eand perhaps to the even greater horror of Nietzsche\u0026#39;s own ghost. The\u003cbr /\u003efolks of Anglo-Saxondom, with their equally characteristic tendency to\u003cbr /\u003eexplain all their enterprises romantically, simultaneously set him up as\u003cbr /\u003ethe Antichrist he no doubt secretly longed to be. The result was a great\u003cbr /\u003edeal of misrepresentation and misunderstanding of him. From the pulpits\u003cbr /\u003eof the allied countries, and particularly from those of England and the\u003cbr /\u003eUnited States, a horde of patriotic ecclesiastics denounced him in\u003cbr /\u003eextravagant terms as the author of all the horrors of the time, and in\u003cbr /\u003ethe newspapers, until the Kaiser was elected sole bugaboo, he shared the\u003cbr /\u003ehonors of that office with von Hindenburg, the Crown Prince, Capt.\u003cbr /\u003eBoy-Ed, von Bernstorff and von Tirpitz. Most of this denunciation, of\u003cbr /\u003ecourse, was frankly idiotic–the na\u0026#239;ve pishposh of suburban Methodists,\u003cbr /\u003enotoriety-seeking college professors, almost illiterate editorial\u003cbr /\u003ewriters, and other such numskulls. In much of it, including not a few\u003cbr /\u003eofficial hymns of hate, Nietzsche was gravely discovered to be the\u003cbr /\u003eteacher of such spokesmen of the extremest sort of German nationalism\u003cbr /\u003eas von Bernhardi and von Treitschke–which was just as intelligent as\u003cbr /\u003emaking George Bernard Shaw the mentor of Lloyd-George. In other solemn\u003cbr /\u003epronunciamentoes he was credited with being philosophically responsible\u003cbr /\u003efor various imaginary crimes of the enemy–the wholesale slaughter or\u003cbr /\u003emutilation of prisoners of war, the deliberate burning down of Red Cross\u003cbr /\u003ehospitals, the utilization of the corpses of the slain for soap-making.\u003cbr /\u003eI amused myself, in those gaudy days, by collecting newspaper clippings\u003cbr /\u003eto this general effect, and later on I shall probably publish a digest\u003cbr /\u003eof them, as a contribution to the study of war hysteria. The thing went\u003cbr /\u003eto unbelievable lengths. On the strength of the fact that I had\u003cbr /\u003epublished a book on Nietzsche in 1906, six years after his death, I was\u003cbr /\u003ecalled upon by agents of the Department of Justice, elaborately\u003cbr /\u003eoutfitted with badges, to meet the charge that I was an intimate\u003cbr /\u003eassociate and agent of \u0026quot;the German monster, Nietzsky.\u0026quot; I quote the\u003cbr /\u003eofficial _proc\u0026#232;s verbal_, an indignant but often misspelled document.\u003cbr /\u003eAlas, poor Nietzsche! After all his laborious efforts to prove that he\u003cbr /\u003ewas not a German, but a Pole–even after his heroic readiness, via\u003cbr /\u003eanti-anti-Semitism, to meet the deduction that, if a Pole, then probably\u003cbr /\u003ealso a Jew!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut under all this alarmed and preposterous tosh there was at least a\u003cbr /\u003esound instinct, and that was the instinct which recognized Nietzsche as\u003cbr /\u003ethe most eloquent, pertinacious and effective of all the critics of the\u003cbr /\u003ephilosophy to which the Allies against Germany stood committed, and on\u003cbr /\u003ethe strength of which, at all events in theory, the United States had\u003cbr /\u003eengaged itself in the war. He was not, in point of fact, involved with\u003cbr /\u003ethe visible enemy, save in remote and transient ways; the German,\u003cbr /\u003eofficially, remained the most ardent of Christians during the war and\u003cbr /\u003ebecame a democrat at its close. But he was plainly a foe of democracy in\u003cbr /\u003eall its forms, political, religious and epistemological, and what is\u003cbr /\u003eworse, his opposition was set forth in terms that were not only\u003cbr /\u003eextraordinarily penetrating and devastating, but also uncommonly\u003cbr /\u003eoffensive. It was thus quite natural that he should have aroused a\u003cbr /\u003edegree of indignation verging upon the pathological in the two countries\u003cbr /\u003ethat had planted themselves upon the democratic platform most boldly,\u003cbr /\u003eand that felt it most shaky, one may add, under their feet. I daresay\u003cbr /\u003ethat Nietzsche, had he been alive, would have got a lot of satisfaction\u003cbr /\u003eout of the execration thus heaped upon him, not only because, being a\u003cbr /\u003evain fellow, he enjoyed execration as a tribute to his general\u003cbr /\u003esingularity, and hence to his superiority, but also and more importantly\u003cbr /\u003ebecause, being no mean psychologist, he would have recognized the\u003cbr /\u003edisconcerting doubts underlying it. If Nietzsche\u0026#39;s criticism of\u003cbr /\u003edemocracy were as ignorant and empty, say, as the average evangelical\u003cbr /\u003eclergyman\u0026#39;s criticism of Darwin\u0026#39;s hypothesis of natural selection, then\u003cbr /\u003ethe advocates of democracy could afford to dismiss it as loftily as the\u003cbr /\u003eDarwinians dismiss the blather of the holy clerks. And if his attack\u003cbr /\u003eupon Christianity were mere sound and fury, signifying nothing, then\u003cbr /\u003ethere would be no call for anathemas from the sacred desk. But these\u003cbr /\u003eonslaughts, in point of fact, have behind them a tremendous learning and\u003cbr /\u003ea great deal of point and plausibility–there are, in brief, bullets in\u003cbr /\u003ethe gun, teeth in the tiger,–and so it is no wonder that they excite\u003cbr /\u003ethe ire of men who hold, as a primary article of belief, that their\u003cbr /\u003eacceptance would destroy civilization, darken the sun, and bring Jahveh\u003cbr /\u003eto sobs upon His Throne.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut in all this justifiable fear, of course, there remains a false\u003cbr /\u003eassumption, and that is the assumption that Nietzsche proposed to\u003cbr /\u003edestroy Christianity altogether, and so rob the plain people of the\u003cbr /\u003eworld of their virtue, their spiritual consolations, and their hope of\u003cbr /\u003eheaven. Nothing could be more untrue. The fact is that Nietzsche had no\u003cbr /\u003einterest whatever in the delusions of the plain people–that is,\u003cbr /\u003eintrinsically. It seemed to him of small moment _what_ they believed, so\u003cbr /\u003elong as it was safely imbecile. What he stood against was not their\u003cbr /\u003ebeliefs, but the elevation of those beliefs, by any sort of democratic\u003cbr /\u003eprocess, to the dignity of a state philosophy–what he feared most was\u003cbr /\u003ethe pollution and crippling of the superior minority by intellectual\u003cbr /\u003edisease from below. His plain aim in \u0026quot;The Antichrist\u0026quot; was to combat that\u003cbr /\u003emenace by completing the work begun, on the one hand, by Darwin and the\u003cbr /\u003eother evolutionist philosophers, and, on the other hand, by German\u003cbr /\u003ehistorians and philologians. The net effect of this earlier attack, in\u003cbr /\u003ethe eighties, had been the collapse of Christian theology as a serious\u003cbr /\u003econcern of educated men. The mob, it must be obvious, was very little\u003cbr /\u003eshaken; even to this day it has not put off its belief in the essential\u003cbr /\u003eChristian doctrines. But the _intelligentsia_, by 1885, had been pretty\u003cbr /\u003ewell convinced. No man of sound information, at the time Nietzsche\u003cbr /\u003eplanned \u0026quot;The Antichrist,\u0026quot; actually believed that the world was created\u003cbr /\u003ein seven days, or that its fauna was once overwhelmed by a flood as a\u003cbr /\u003epenalty for the sins of man, or that Noah saved the boa constrictor, the\u003cbr /\u003eprairie dog and the _pediculus capitis_ by taking a pair of each into\u003cbr /\u003ethe ark, or that Lot\u0026#39;s wife was turned into a pillar of salt, or that a\u003cbr /\u003efragment of the True Cross could cure hydrophobia. Such notions, still\u003cbr /\u003ealmost universally prevalent in Christendom a century before, were now\u003cbr /\u003econfined to the great body of ignorant and credulous men–that is, to\u003cbr /\u003eninety-five or ninety-six percent. of the race. For a man of the\u003cbr /\u003esuperior minority to subscribe to one of them publicly was already\u003cbr /\u003esufficient to set him off as one in imminent need of psychiatrical\u003cbr /\u003eattention. Belief in them had become a mark of inferiority, like the\u003cbr /\u003eallied belief in madstones, magic and apparitions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut though the theology of Christianity had thus sunk to the lowly\u003cbr /\u003eestate of a mere delusion of the rabble, propagated on that level by the\u003cbr /\u003eancient caste of sacerdotal parasites, the ethics of Christianity\u003cbr /\u003econtinued to enjoy the utmost acceptance, and perhaps even more\u003cbr /\u003eacceptance than ever before. It seemed to be generally felt, in fact,\u003cbr /\u003ethat they simply _must_ be saved from the wreck–that the world would\u003cbr /\u003evanish into chaos if they went the way of the revelations supporting\u003cbr /\u003ethem. In this fear a great many judicious men joined, and so there arose\u003cbr /\u003ewhat was, in essence, an absolutely new Christian cult–a cult, to wit,\u003cbr /\u003epurged of all the supernaturalism superimposed upon the older cult by\u003cbr /\u003egenerations of theologians, and harking back to what was conceived to be\u003cbr /\u003ethe pure ethical doctrine of Jesus. This cult still flourishes;\u003cbr /\u003eProtestantism tends to become identical with it; it invades Catholicism\u003cbr /\u003eas Modernism; it is supported by great numbers of men whose intelligence\u003cbr /\u003eis manifest and whose sincerity is not open to question. Even Nietzsche\u003cbr /\u003ehimself yielded to it in weak moments, as you will discover on examining\u003cbr /\u003ehis somewhat laborious effort to make Paul the villain of Christian\u003cbr /\u003etheology, and Jesus no more than an innocent bystander. But this\u003cbr /\u003esentimental yielding never went far enough to distract his attention for\u003cbr /\u003elong from his main idea, which was this: that Christian ethics were\u003cbr /\u003equite as dubious, at bottom, as Christian theology–that they were\u003cbr /\u003efounded, just as surely as such childish fables as the story of Jonah\u003cbr /\u003eand the whale, upon the peculiar prejudices and credulities, the special\u003cbr /\u003edesires and appetites, of inferior men–that they warred upon the best\u003cbr /\u003einterests of men of a better sort quite as unmistakably as the most\u003cbr /\u003eextravagant of objective superstitions. In brief, what he saw in\u003cbr /\u003eChristian ethics, under all the poetry and all the fine show of altruism\u003cbr /\u003eand all the theoretical benefits therein, was a democratic effort to\u003cbr /\u003ecurb the egoism of the strong–a conspiracy of the _chandala_ against\u003cbr /\u003ethe free functioning of their superiors, nay, against the free progress\u003cbr /\u003eof mankind. This theory is the thing he exposes in \u0026quot;The Antichrist,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003ebringing to the business his amazingly chromatic and exigent eloquence\u003cbr /\u003eat its finest flower. This is the \u0026quot;conspiracy\u0026quot; he sets forth in all the\u003cbr /\u003epanoply of his characteristic italics, dashes, _sforzando_ interjections\u003cbr /\u003eand exclamation points.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWell, an idea is an idea. The present one may be right and it may be\u003cbr /\u003ewrong. One thing is quite certain: that no progress will be made against\u003cbr /\u003eit by denouncing it as merely immoral. If it is ever laid at all, it\u003cbr /\u003emust be laid evidentially, logically. The notion to the contrary is\u003cbr /\u003ethoroughly democratic; the mob is the most ruthless of tyrants; it is\u003cbr /\u003ealways in a democratic society that heresy and felony tend to be most\u003cbr /\u003econstantly confused. One hears without surprise of a Bismarck\u003cbr /\u003ephilosophizing placidly (at least in his old age) upon the delusion of\u003cbr /\u003eSocialism and of a Frederick the Great playing the hose of his cynicism\u003cbr /\u003eupon the absolutism that was almost identical with his own person, but\u003cbr /\u003emen in the mass never brook the destructive discussion of their\u003cbr /\u003efundamental beliefs, and that impatience is naturally most evident in\u003cbr /\u003ethose societies in which men in the mass are most influential. Democracy\u003cbr /\u003eand free speech are not facets of one gem; democracy and free speech are\u003cbr /\u003eeternal enemies. But in any battle between an institution and an idea,\u003cbr /\u003ethe idea, in the long run, has the better of it. Here I do not venture\u003cbr /\u003einto the absurdity of arguing that, as the world wags on, the truth\u003cbr /\u003ealways survives. I believe nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, it\u003cbr /\u003eseems to me that an idea that happens to be true–or, more exactly, as\u003cbr /\u003enear to truth as any human idea can be, and yet remain generally\u003cbr /\u003eintelligible–it seems to me that such an idea carries a special and\u003cbr /\u003eoften fatal handicap. The majority of men prefer delusion to truth. It\u003cbr /\u003esoothes. It is easy to grasp. Above all, it fits more snugly than the\u003cbr /\u003etruth into a universe of false appearances–of complex and irrational\u003cbr /\u003ephenomena, defectively grasped. But though an idea that is true is thus\u003cbr /\u003enot likely to prevail, an idea that is _attacked_ enjoys a great\u003cbr /\u003eadvantage. The evidence behind it is now supported by sympathy, the\u003cbr /\u003esporting instinct, sentimentality–and sentimentality is as powerful as\u003cbr /\u003ean army with banners. One never hears of a martyr in history whose\u003cbr /\u003enotions are seriously disputed today. The forgotten ideas are those of\u003cbr /\u003ethe men who put them forward soberly and quietly, hoping fatuously that\u003cbr /\u003ethey would conquer by the force of their truth; these are the ideas that\u003cbr /\u003ewe now struggle to rediscover. Had Nietzsche lived to be burned at the\u003cbr /\u003estake by outraged Mississippi Methodists, it would have been a glorious\u003cbr /\u003eday for his doctrines. As it is, they are helped on their way every time\u003cbr /\u003ethey are denounced as immoral and against God. The war brought down upon\u003cbr /\u003ethem the maledictions of vast herds of right-thinking men. And now \u0026quot;The\u003cbr /\u003eAntichrist,\u0026quot; after fifteen years of neglect, is being reprinted….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne imagines the author, a sardonic wraith, snickering somewhat sadly\u003cbr /\u003eover the fact. His shade, wherever it suffers, is favoured in these days\u003cbr /\u003eby many such consolations, some of them of much greater horsepower.\u003cbr /\u003eThink of the facts and arguments, even the underlying theories and\u003cbr /\u003eattitudes, that have been borrowed from him, consciously and\u003cbr /\u003eunconsciously, by the foes of Bolshevism during these last thrilling\u003cbr /\u003eyears! The face of democracy, suddenly seen hideously close, has scared\u003cbr /\u003ethe guardians of the reigning plutocracy half to death, and they have\u003cbr /\u003egone to the devil himself for aid. Southern Senators, almost illiterate\u003cbr /\u003emen, have mixed his acids with well water and spouted them like\u003cbr /\u003eaffrighted geysers, not knowing what they did. Nor are they the first to\u003cbr /\u003eborrow from him. Years ago I called attention to the debt incurred with\u003cbr /\u003echaracteristic forgetfulness of obligation by the late Theodore\u003cbr /\u003eRoosevelt, in \u0026quot;The Strenuous Life\u0026quot; and elsewhere. Roosevelt, a typical\u003cbr /\u003eapologist for the existing order, adeptly dragging a herring across the\u003cbr /\u003etrail whenever it was menaced, yet managed to delude the native boobery,\u003cbr /\u003eat least until toward the end, into accepting him as a fiery exponent of\u003cbr /\u003epure democracy. Perhaps he even fooled himself; charlatans usually do\u003cbr /\u003eso soon or late. A study of Nietzsche reveals the sources of much that\u003cbr /\u003ewas honest in him, and exposes the hollowness of much that was sham.\u003cbr /\u003eNietzsche, an infinitely harder and more courageous intellect, was\u003cbr /\u003eincapable of any such confusion of ideas; he seldom allowed\u003cbr /\u003esentimentality to turn him from the glaring fact. What is called\u003cbr /\u003eBolshevism today he saw clearly a generation ago and described for what\u003cbr /\u003eit was and is–democracy in another aspect, the old _ressentiment_ of the\u003cbr /\u003elower orders in free function once more. Socialism, Puritanism,\u003cbr /\u003ePhilistinism, Christianity–he saw them all as allotropic forms of\u003cbr /\u003edemocracy, as variations upon the endless struggle of quantity against\u003cbr /\u003equality, of the weak and timorous against the strong and enterprising,\u003cbr /\u003eof the botched against the fit. The world needed a staggering\u003cbr /\u003eexaggeration to make it see even half of the truth. It trembles today as\u003cbr /\u003eit trembled during the French Revolution. Perhaps it would tremble less\u003cbr /\u003eif it could combat the monster with a clearer conscience and less burden\u003cbr /\u003eof compromising theory–if it could launch its forces frankly at the\u003cbr /\u003efundamental doctrine, and not merely employ them to police the\u003cbr /\u003etransient orgy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNietzsche, in the long run, may help it toward that greater honesty. His\u003cbr /\u003enotions, propagated by cuttings from cuttings from cuttings, may\u003cbr /\u003econceivably prepare the way for a sounder, more healthful theory of\u003cbr /\u003esociety and of the state, and so free human progress from the\u003cbr /\u003estupidities which now hamper it, and men of true vision from the\u003cbr /\u003edespairs which now sicken them. I say it is conceivable, but I doubt\u003cbr /\u003ethat it is probable. The soul and the belly of mankind are too evenly\u003cbr /\u003ebalanced; it is not likely that the belly will ever put away its hunger\u003cbr /\u003eor forget its power. Here, perhaps, there is an example of the eternal\u003cbr /\u003erecurrence that Nietzsche was fond of mulling over in his blacker moods.\u003cbr /\u003eWe are in the midst of one of the perennial risings of the lower orders.\u003cbr /\u003eIt got under way long before any of the current Bolshevist demons was\u003cbr /\u003eborn; it was given its long, secure start by the intolerable tyranny of\u003cbr /\u003ethe plutocracy–the end product of the Eighteenth Century revolt against\u003cbr /\u003ethe old aristocracy. It found resistance suddenly slackened by civil war\u003cbr /\u003ewithin the plutocracy itself–one gang of traders falling upon another\u003cbr /\u003egang, to the tune of vast hymn-singing and yells to God. Perhaps it has\u003cbr /\u003ealready passed its apogee; the plutocracy, chastened, shows signs of a\u003cbr /\u003enew solidarity; the wheel continues to swing \u0026#39;round. But this combat\u003cbr /\u003ebetween proletariat and plutocracy is, after all, itself a civil war.\u003cbr /\u003eTwo inferiorities struggle for the privilege of polluting the world.\u003cbr /\u003eWhat actual difference does it make to a civilized man, when there is a\u003cbr /\u003esteel strike, whether the workmen win or the mill-owners win? The\u003cbr /\u003econflict can interest him only as spectacle, as the conflict between\u003cbr /\u003eBonaparte and the old order in Europe interested Goethe and Beethoven.\u003cbr /\u003eThe victory, whichever way it goes, will simply bring chaos nearer, and\u003cbr /\u003eso set the stage for a genuine revolution later on, with (let us hope) a\u003cbr /\u003enew feudalism or something better coming out of it, and a new Thirteenth\u003cbr /\u003eCentury at dawn. This seems to be the slow, costly way of the worst of\u003cbr /\u003ehabitable worlds.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the present case my money is laid upon the plutocracy. It will win\u003cbr /\u003ebecause it will be able, in the long run, to enlist the finer\u003cbr /\u003eintelligences. The mob and its maudlin causes attract only\u003cbr /\u003esentimentalists and scoundrels, chiefly the latter. Politics, under a\u003cbr /\u003edemocracy, reduces itself to a mere struggle for office by flatterers\u003cbr /\u003eof the proletariat; even when a superior man prevails at that disgusting\u003cbr /\u003egame he must prevail at the cost of his self-respect. Not many superior\u003cbr /\u003emen make the attempt. The average great captain of the rabble, when he\u003cbr /\u003eis not simply a weeper over irremediable wrongs, is a hypocrite so far\u003cbr /\u003egone that he is unconscious of his own hypocrisy–a slimy fellow,\u003cbr /\u003eoffensive to the nose. The plutocracy can recruit measurably more\u003cbr /\u003erespectable janissaries, if only because it can make self-interest less\u003cbr /\u003eobviously costly to _amour propre_. Its defect and its weakness lie in\u003cbr /\u003ethe fact that it is still too young to have acquired dignity. But lately\u003cbr /\u003esprung from the mob it now preys upon, it yet shows some of the habits\u003cbr /\u003eof mind of that mob: it is blatant, stupid, ignorant, lacking in all\u003cbr /\u003edelicate instinct and governmental finesse. Above all, it remains\u003cbr /\u003esomewhat heavily moral. One seldom finds it undertaking one of its\u003cbr /\u003echaracteristic imbecilities without offering a sonorous moral reason; it\u003cbr /\u003espends almost as much to support the Y.\u0026#160;M.\u0026#160;C.\u0026#160;A., vice-crusading,\u003cbr /\u003eProhibition and other such puerilities as it spends upon Congressmen,\u003cbr /\u003estrike-breakers, gun-men, kept patriots and newspapers. In England the\u003cbr /\u003ecase is even worse. It is almost impossible to find a wealthy industrial\u003cbr /\u003eover there who is not also an eminent non-conformist layman, and even\u003cbr /\u003eamong financiers there are praying brothers. On the Continent, the day\u003cbr /\u003eis saved by the fact that the plutocracy tends to become more and more\u003cbr /\u003eJewish. Here the intellectual cynicism of the Jew almost counterbalances\u003cbr /\u003ehis social unpleasantness. If he is destined to lead the plutocracy of\u003cbr /\u003ethe world out of Little Bethel he will fail, of course, to turn it into\u003cbr /\u003ean aristocracy–_i. e._, a caste of gentlemen–, but he will at least\u003cbr /\u003emake it clever, and hence worthy of consideration. The case against the\u003cbr /\u003eJews is long and damning; it would justify ten thousand times as many\u003cbr /\u003epogroms as now go on in the world. But whenever you find a\u003cbr /\u003eDavidsb\u0026#252;ndlerschaft making practise against the Philistines, there you\u003cbr /\u003ewill find a Jew laying on. Maybe it was this fact that caused Nietzsche\u003cbr /\u003eto speak up for the children of Israel quite as often as he spoke\u003cbr /\u003eagainst them. He was not blind to their faults, but when he set them\u003cbr /\u003ebeside Christians he could not deny their general superiority. Perhaps\u003cbr /\u003ein America and England, as on the Continent, the increasing Jewishness\u003cbr /\u003eof the plutocracy, while cutting it off from all chance of ever\u003cbr /\u003edeveloping into an aristocracy, will yet lift it to such a dignity that\u003cbr /\u003eit will at least deserve a certain grudging respect.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut even so, it will remain in a sort of half-world, midway between the\u003cbr /\u003egutter and the stars. Above it will still stand the small group of men\u003cbr /\u003ethat constitutes the permanent aristocracy of the race–the men of\u003cbr /\u003eimagination and high purpose, the makers of genuine progress, the brave\u003cbr /\u003eand ardent spirits, above all petty fears and discontents and above all\u003cbr /\u003epetty hopes and ideals no less. There were heroes before Agamemnon;\u003cbr /\u003ethere will be Bachs after Johann Sebastian. And beneath the Judaized\u003cbr /\u003eplutocracy, the sublimated _bourgeoisie_, there the immemorial\u003cbr /\u003eproletariat, I venture to guess, will roar on, endlessly tortured by its\u003cbr /\u003evain hatreds and envies, stampeded and made to tremble by its ancient\u003cbr /\u003esuperstitions, prodded and made miserable by its sordid and degrading\u003cbr /\u003ehopes. It seems to me very likely that, in this proletariat,\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity will continue to survive. It is nonsense, true enough, but\u003cbr /\u003eit is sweet. Nietzsche, denouncing its dangers as a poison, almost falls\u003cbr /\u003einto the error of denying it its undoubtedly sugary smack. Of all the\u003cbr /\u003ereligions ever devised by the great practical jokers of the race, this\u003cbr /\u003eis the one that offers most for the least money, so to speak, to the\u003cbr /\u003einferior man. It starts out by denying his inferiority in plain terms:\u003cbr /\u003e_all_ men are equal in the sight of God. It ends by erecting that\u003cbr /\u003einferiority into a sort of actual superiority: it is a merit to be\u003cbr /\u003estupid, and miserable, and sorely put upon–of such are the celestial\u003cbr /\u003eelect. Not all the eloquence of a million Nietzsches, nor all the\u003cbr /\u003epainful marshalling of evidence of a million Darwins and Harnacks, will\u003cbr /\u003eever empty that great consolation of its allure. The most they can ever\u003cbr /\u003eaccomplish is to make the superior orders of men acutely conscious of\u003cbr /\u003ethe exact nature of it, and so give them armament against the contagion.\u003cbr /\u003eThis is going on; this is being done. I think that \u0026quot;The Antichrist\u0026quot; has\u003cbr /\u003ea useful place in that enterprise. It is strident, it is often\u003cbr /\u003eextravagant, it is, to many sensitive men, in the worst of possible\u003cbr /\u003etaste, but at bottom it is enormously apt and effective–and on the\u003cbr /\u003esurface it is undoubtedly a good show. One somehow enjoys, with the\u003cbr /\u003emalice that is native to man, the spectacle of anathemas batted back; it\u003cbr /\u003eis refreshing to see the pitchfork employed against gentlemen who have\u003cbr /\u003edoomed such innumerable caravans to hell. In Nietzsche they found, after\u003cbr /\u003emany long years, a foeman worthy of them–not a mere fancy swordsman\u003cbr /\u003elike Voltaire, or a mob orator like Tom Paine, or a pedant like the\u003cbr /\u003eheretics of exegesis, but a gladiator armed with steel and armoured with\u003cbr /\u003esteel, and showing all the ferocious gusto of a mediaeval bishop. It is\u003cbr /\u003ea pity that Holy Church has no process for the elevation of demons, like\u003cbr /\u003eits process for the canonization of saints. There must be a long roll of\u003cbr /\u003eblack miracles to the discredit of the Accursed Friedrich–sinners\u003cbr /\u003epurged of conscience and made happy in their sinning, clerics shaken in\u003cbr /\u003etheir theology by visions of a new and better holy city, the strong made\u003cbr /\u003eto exult, the weak robbed of their old sad romance. It would be a\u003cbr /\u003epleasure to see the _Advocatus Diaboli_ turn from the table of the\u003cbr /\u003eprosecution to the table of the defence, and move in solemn form for the\u003cbr /\u003edamnation of the Naumburg hobgoblin….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOf all Nietzsche\u0026#39;s books, \u0026quot;The Antichrist\u0026quot; comes nearest to\u003cbr /\u003econventionality in form. It presents a connected argument with very few\u003cbr /\u003einterludes, and has a beginning, a middle and an end. Most of his works\u003cbr /\u003eare in the form of collections of apothegms, and sometimes the subject\u003cbr /\u003echanges on every second page. This fact constitutes one of the counts in\u003cbr /\u003ethe orthodox indictment of him: it is cited as proof that his capacity\u003cbr /\u003efor consecutive thought was limited, and that he was thus deficient\u003cbr /\u003ementally, and perhaps a downright moron. The argument, it must be\u003cbr /\u003eobvious, is fundamentally nonsensical. What deceives the professors is\u003cbr /\u003ethe traditional prolixity of philosophers. Because the average\u003cbr /\u003ephilosophical writer, when he essays to expose his ideas, makes such\u003cbr /\u003einordinate drafts upon the parts of speech that the dictionary is almost\u003cbr /\u003eemptied these defective observers jump to the conclusion that his\u003cbr /\u003eintrinsic notions are of corresponding weight. This is not unseldom\u003cbr /\u003equite untrue. What makes philosophy so garrulous is not the profundity\u003cbr /\u003eof philosophers, but their lack of art; they are like physicians who\u003cbr /\u003esought to cure a slight hyperacidity by giving the patient a carload of\u003cbr /\u003eburned oyster-shells to eat. There is, too, the endless poll-parrotting\u003cbr /\u003ethat goes on: each new philosopher must prove his learning by\u003cbr /\u003elaboriously rehearsing the ideas of all previous philosophers….\u003cbr /\u003eNietzsche avoided both faults. He always assumed that his readers knew\u003cbr /\u003ethe books, and that it was thus unnecessary to rewrite them. And, having\u003cbr /\u003ean idea that seemed to him to be novel and original, he stated it in as\u003cbr /\u003efew words as possible, and then shut down. Sometimes he got it into a\u003cbr /\u003ehundred words; sometimes it took a thousand; now and then, as in the\u003cbr /\u003epresent case, he developed a series of related ideas into a connected\u003cbr /\u003ebook. But he never wrote a word too many. He never pumped up an idea to\u003cbr /\u003emake it appear bigger than it actually was. The pedagogues, alas, are\u003cbr /\u003enot accustomed to that sort of writing in serious fields. They resent\u003cbr /\u003eit, and sometimes they even try to improve it. There exists, in fact, a\u003cbr /\u003ehuge and solemn tome on Nietzsche by a learned man of America in which\u003cbr /\u003eall of his brilliancy is painfully translated into the windy phrases of\u003cbr /\u003ethe seminaries. The tome is satisfactorily ponderous, but the meat of\u003cbr /\u003ethe cocoanut is left out: there is actually no discussion of the\u003cbr /\u003eNietzschean view of Christianity!… Always Nietzsche daunts the\u003cbr /\u003epedants. He employed too few words for them–and he had too many ideas.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e* * * * *\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe present translation of \u0026quot;The Antichrist\u0026quot; is published by agreement\u003cbr /\u003ewith Dr.\u0026#160;Oscar Levy, editor of the English edition of Nietzsche. There\u003cbr /\u003eare two earlier translations, one by Thomas Common and the other by\u003cbr /\u003eAnthony M. Ludovici. That of Mr.\u0026#160;Common follows the text very closely,\u003cbr /\u003eand thus occasionally shows some essentially German turns of phrase;\u003cbr /\u003ethat of Mr.\u0026#160;Ludovici is more fluent but rather less exact. I do not\u003cbr /\u003eoffer my own version on the plea that either of these is useless; on the\u003cbr /\u003econtrary, I cheerfully acknowledge that they have much merit, and that\u003cbr /\u003ethey helped me at almost every line. I began this new Englishing of the\u003cbr /\u003ebook, not in any hope of supplanting them, and surely not with any\u003cbr /\u003enotion of meeting a great public need, but simply as a private amusement\u003cbr /\u003ein troubled days. But as I got on with it I began to see ways of putting\u003cbr /\u003esome flavour of Nietzsche\u0026#39;s peculiar style into the English, and so\u003cbr /\u003eamusement turned into a more or less serious labour. The result, of\u003cbr /\u003ecourse, is far from satisfactory, but it at least represents a very\u003cbr /\u003ediligent attempt. Nietzsche, always under the influence of French\u003cbr /\u003emodels, wrote a German that differs materially from any other German\u003cbr /\u003ethat I know. It is more nervous, more varied, more rapid in tempo; it\u003cbr /\u003eruns to more effective climaxes; it is never stodgy. His marks begin to\u003cbr /\u003eshow upon the writing of the younger Germans of today. They are getting\u003cbr /\u003eaway from the old thunderous manner, with its long sentences and its\u003cbr /\u003etedious grammatical complexities. In the course of time, I daresay, they\u003cbr /\u003ewill develop a German almost as clear as French and almost as colourful\u003cbr /\u003eand resilient as English.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI owe thanks to Dr.\u0026#160;Levy for his _imprimatur_, to Mr.\u0026#160;Theodor Hemberger\u003cbr /\u003efor criticism, and to Messrs. Common and Ludovici for showing me the way\u003cbr /\u003earound many a difficulty.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eH.\u0026#160;L. MENCKEN.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003ePREFACE\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is\u003cbr /\u003eyet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Zarathustra\u0026quot;: how _could_ I confound myself with those who are now\u003cbr /\u003esprouting ears?–First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men\u003cbr /\u003eare born posthumously.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe conditions under which any one understands me, and _necessarily_\u003cbr /\u003eunderstands me–I know them only too well. Even to endure my\u003cbr /\u003eseriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the\u003cbr /\u003everge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops–and\u003cbr /\u003eto looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as\u003cbr /\u003e_beneath_ him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the\u003cbr /\u003etruth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him…. He must\u003cbr /\u003ehave an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the\u003cbr /\u003ecourage for; the courage for the _forbidden_; predestination for the\u003cbr /\u003elabyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music.\u003cbr /\u003eNew eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have\u003cbr /\u003ehitherto remained unheard. _And_ the will to economize in the grand\u003cbr /\u003emanner–to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm…. Reverence for\u003cbr /\u003eself; love of self; absolute freedom of self….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eVery well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my\u003cbr /\u003ereaders foreordained: of what account are the _rest_?–The rest are\u003cbr /\u003emerely humanity.–One must make one\u0026#39;s self superior to humanity, in\u003cbr /\u003epower, in _loftiness_ of soul,–in contempt.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eFRIEDRICH W. NIETZSCHE.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTHE ANTICHRIST\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans–we know well\u003cbr /\u003eenough how remote our place is. \u0026quot;Neither by land nor by water will you\u003cbr /\u003efind the road to the Hyperboreans\u0026quot;: even Pindar,[1] in his day, knew\u003cbr /\u003e_that_ much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond\u003cbr /\u003e_death_–_our_ life, _our_ happiness…. We have discovered that\u003cbr /\u003ehappiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of\u003cbr /\u003eyears in the labyrinth. Who _else_ has found it?–The man of today?–\u0026quot;I\u003cbr /\u003edon\u0026#39;t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn\u0026#39;t know\u003cbr /\u003eeither the way out or the way in\u0026quot;–so sighs the man of today…. _This_\u003cbr /\u003eis the sort of modernity that made us ill,–we sickened on lazy peace,\u003cbr /\u003ecowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and\u003cbr /\u003eNay. This tolerance and _largeur_ of the heart that \u0026quot;forgives\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eeverything because it \u0026quot;understands\u0026quot; everything is a sirocco to us.\u003cbr /\u003eRather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such\u003cbr /\u003esouth-winds!… We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor\u003cbr /\u003eothers; but we were a long time finding out _where_ to direct our\u003cbr /\u003ecourage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. _Our_ fate–it was\u003cbr /\u003ethe fulness, the tension, the _storing up_ of powers. We thirsted for\u003cbr /\u003ethe lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the\u003cbr /\u003ehappiness of the weakling, from \u0026quot;resignation\u0026quot;… There was thunder in\u003cbr /\u003eour air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast–_for we had not yet\u003cbr /\u003efound the way_. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight\u003cbr /\u003eline, a _goal_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[1] _Cf._ the tenth Pythian ode. See also the fourth book of Herodotus.\u003cbr /\u003eThe Hyperboreans were a mythical people beyond the Rhipaean mountains,\u003cbr /\u003ein the far North. They enjoyed unbroken happiness and perpetual youth.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is good?–Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to\u003cbr /\u003epower, power itself, in man.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is evil?–Whatever springs from weakness.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is happiness?–The feeling that power _increases_–that resistance\u003cbr /\u003eis overcome.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eNot contentment, but more power; _not_ peace at any price, but war;\u003cbr /\u003e_not_ virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, _virtu_,\u003cbr /\u003evirtue free of moral acid).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of _our_ charity.\u003cbr /\u003eAnd one should help them to it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is more harmful than any vice?–Practical sympathy for the botched\u003cbr /\u003eand the weak–Christianity….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the\u003cbr /\u003eorder of living creatures (–man is an end–): but what type of man must\u003cbr /\u003ebe _bred_, must be _willed_, as being the most valuable, the most worthy\u003cbr /\u003eof life, the most secure guarantee of the future.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but\u003cbr /\u003ealways as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately\u003cbr /\u003e_willed_. Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it\u003cbr /\u003ehas been almost _the_ terror of terrors;–and out of that terror the\u003cbr /\u003econtrary type has been willed, cultivated and _attained_: the domestic\u003cbr /\u003eanimal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man–the Christian….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eMankind surely does _not_ represent an evolution toward a better or\u003cbr /\u003estronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This \u0026quot;progress\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eis merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of\u003cbr /\u003etoday, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the\u003cbr /\u003eRenaissance; the process of evolution does _not_ necessarily mean\u003cbr /\u003eelevation, enhancement, strengthening.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTrue enough, it succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various\u003cbr /\u003eparts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in\u003cbr /\u003ethese cases a _higher_ type certainly manifests itself; something which,\u003cbr /\u003ecompared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such\u003cbr /\u003ehappy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain\u003cbr /\u003epossible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and\u003cbr /\u003enations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to\u003cbr /\u003ethe death against this _higher_ type of man, it has put all the deepest\u003cbr /\u003einstincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of\u003cbr /\u003eevil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts–the strong man as\u003cbr /\u003ethe typical reprobate, the \u0026quot;outcast among men.\u0026quot; Christianity has taken\u003cbr /\u003ethe part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out\u003cbr /\u003eof _antagonism_ to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it\u003cbr /\u003ehas corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are\u003cbr /\u003eintellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual\u003cbr /\u003evalues as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most\u003cbr /\u003elamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his\u003cbr /\u003eintellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually\u003cbr /\u003edestroyed by Christianity!–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is a painful and tragic spectacle that rises before me: I have drawn\u003cbr /\u003eback the curtain from the _rottenness_ of man. This word, in my mouth,\u003cbr /\u003eis at least free from one suspicion: that it involves a moral accusation\u003cbr /\u003eagainst humanity. It is used–and I wish to emphasize the fact\u003cbr /\u003eagain–without any moral significance: and this is so far true that the\u003cbr /\u003erottenness I speak of is most apparent to me precisely in those quarters\u003cbr /\u003ewhere there has been most aspiration, hitherto, toward \u0026quot;virtue\u0026quot; and\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;godliness.\u0026quot; As you probably surmise, I understand rottenness in the\u003cbr /\u003esense of _d\u0026#233;cadence_: my argument is that all the values on which\u003cbr /\u003emankind now fixes its highest aspirations are _d\u0026#233;cadence_-values.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its\u003cbr /\u003einstincts, when it chooses, when it _prefers_, what is injurious to it.\u003cbr /\u003eA history of the \u0026quot;higher feelings,\u0026quot; the \u0026quot;ideals of humanity\u0026quot;–and it is\u003cbr /\u003epossible that I\u0026#39;ll have to write it–would almost explain why man is so\u003cbr /\u003edegenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for\u003cbr /\u003esurvival, for the accumulation of forces, for _power_: whenever the will\u003cbr /\u003eto power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest\u003cbr /\u003evalues of humanity have been emptied of this will–that the values of\u003cbr /\u003e_d\u0026#233;cadence_, of _nihilism_, now prevail under the holiest names.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity is called the religion of _pity_.–Pity stands in\u003cbr /\u003eopposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the\u003cbr /\u003efeeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he\u003cbr /\u003epities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is\u003cbr /\u003emultiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under\u003cbr /\u003ecertain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and\u003cbr /\u003eliving energy–a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the\u003cbr /\u003ecause (–the case of the death of the Nazarene). This is the first view\u003cbr /\u003eof it; there is, however, a still more important one. If one measures\u003cbr /\u003ethe effects of pity by the gravity of the reactions it sets up, its\u003cbr /\u003echaracter as a menace to life appears in a much clearer light. Pity\u003cbr /\u003ethwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural\u003cbr /\u003eselection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on\u003cbr /\u003ethe side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining\u003cbr /\u003elife in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a\u003cbr /\u003egloomy and dubious aspect. Mankind has ventured to call pity a virtue\u003cbr /\u003e(–in every _superior_ moral system it appears as a weakness–); going\u003cbr /\u003estill further, it has been called _the_ virtue, the source and\u003cbr /\u003efoundation of all other virtues–but let us always bear in mind that\u003cbr /\u003ethis was from the standpoint of a philosophy that was nihilistic, and\u003cbr /\u003eupon whose shield _the denial of life_ was inscribed. Schopenhauer was\u003cbr /\u003eright in this: that by means of pity life is denied, and made _worthy of\u003cbr /\u003edenial_–pity is the technic of nihilism. Let me repeat: this depressing\u003cbr /\u003eand contagious instinct stands against all those instincts which work\u003cbr /\u003efor the preservation and enhancement of life: in the r\u0026#244;le of _protector_\u003cbr /\u003eof the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of\u003cbr /\u003e_d\u0026#233;cadence_–pity persuades to extinction…. Of course, one doesn\u0026#39;t say\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;extinction\u0026quot;: one says \u0026quot;the other world,\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;the _true_\u003cbr /\u003elife,\u0026quot; or Nirvana, salvation, blessedness…. This innocent rhetoric,\u003cbr /\u003efrom the realm of religious-ethical balderdash, appears _a good deal\u003cbr /\u003eless innocent_ when one reflects upon the tendency that it conceals\u003cbr /\u003ebeneath sublime words: the tendency to _destroy life_. Schopenhauer was\u003cbr /\u003ehostile to life: that is why pity appeared to him as a virtue….\u003cbr /\u003eAristotle, as every one knows, saw in pity a sickly and dangerous state\u003cbr /\u003eof mind, the remedy for which was an occasional purgative: he regarded\u003cbr /\u003etragedy as that purgative. The instinct of life should prompt us to seek\u003cbr /\u003esome means of puncturing any such pathological and dangerous\u003cbr /\u003eaccumulation of pity as that appearing in Schopenhauer\u0026#39;s case (and also,\u003cbr /\u003ealack, in that of our whole literary _d\u0026#233;cadence_, from St. Petersburg to\u003cbr /\u003eParis, from Tolstoi to Wagner), that it may burst and be discharged….\u003cbr /\u003eNothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than\u003cbr /\u003eChristian pity. To be the doctors _here_, to be unmerciful _here_, to\u003cbr /\u003ewield the knife _here_–all this is _our_ business, all this is _our_\u003cbr /\u003esort of humanity, by this sign we are philosophers, we Hyperboreans!–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e8.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIt is necessary to say just _whom_ we regard as our antagonists:\u003cbr /\u003etheologians and all who have any theological blood in their veins–this\u003cbr /\u003eis our whole philosophy…. One must have faced that menace at close\u003cbr /\u003ehand, better still, one must have had experience of it directly and\u003cbr /\u003ealmost succumbed to it, to realize that it is not to be taken lightly\u003cbr /\u003e(–the alleged free-thinking of our naturalists and physiologists seems\u003cbr /\u003eto me to be a joke–they have no passion about such things; they have\u003cbr /\u003enot suffered–). This poisoning goes a great deal further than most\u003cbr /\u003epeople think: I find the arrogant habit of the theologian among all who\u003cbr /\u003eregard themselves as \u0026quot;idealists\u0026quot;–among all who, by virtue of a higher\u003cbr /\u003epoint of departure, claim a right to rise above reality, and to look\u003cbr /\u003eupon it with suspicion…. The idealist, like the ecclesiastic, carries\u003cbr /\u003eall sorts of lofty concepts in his hand (–and not only in his hand!);\u003cbr /\u003ehe launches them with benevolent contempt against \u0026quot;understanding,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the\u003cbr /\u003esenses,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;honor,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;good living,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;science\u0026quot;; he sees such things as\u003cbr /\u003e_beneath_ him, as pernicious and seductive forces, on which \u0026quot;the soul\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003esoars as a pure thing-in-itself–as if humility, chastity, poverty, in a\u003cbr /\u003eword, _holiness_, had not already done much more damage to life than all\u003cbr /\u003eimaginable horrors and vices…. The pure soul is a pure lie…. So long\u003cbr /\u003eas the priest, that _professional_ denier, calumniator and poisoner of\u003cbr /\u003elife, is accepted as a _higher_ variety of man, there can be no answer\u003cbr /\u003eto the question, What _is_ truth? Truth has already been stood on its\u003cbr /\u003ehead when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its\u003cbr /\u003erepresentative….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e9.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eUpon this theological instinct I make war: I find the tracks of it\u003cbr /\u003eeverywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and\u003cbr /\u003edishonourable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this\u003cbr /\u003econdition is called _faith_: in other words, closing one\u0026#39;s eyes upon\u003cbr /\u003eone\u0026#39;s self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable\u003cbr /\u003efalsehood. People erect a concept of morality, of virtue, of holiness\u003cbr /\u003eupon this false view of all things; they ground good conscience upon\u003cbr /\u003efaulty vision; they argue that no _other_ sort of vision has value any\u003cbr /\u003emore, once they have made theirs sacrosanct with the names of \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;salvation\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;eternity.\u0026quot; I unearth this theological instinct in all\u003cbr /\u003edirections: it is the most widespread and the most _subterranean_ form\u003cbr /\u003eof falsehood to be found on earth. Whatever a theologian regards as true\u003cbr /\u003e_must_ be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His\u003cbr /\u003eprofound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming\u003cbr /\u003einto honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence\u003cbr /\u003eof theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the\u003cbr /\u003econcepts \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;false\u0026quot; are forced to change places: whatever is\u003cbr /\u003emost damaging to life is there called \u0026quot;true,\u0026quot; and whatever exalts it,\u003cbr /\u003eintensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is\u003cbr /\u003ethere called \u0026quot;false.\u0026quot;… When theologians, working through the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;consciences\u0026quot; of princes (or of peoples–), stretch out their hands for\u003cbr /\u003e_power_, there is never any doubt as to the fundamental issue: the will\u003cbr /\u003eto make an end, the _nihilistic_ will exerts that power….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e10.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAmong Germans I am immediately understood when I say that theological\u003cbr /\u003eblood is the ruin of philosophy. The Protestant pastor is the\u003cbr /\u003egrandfather of German philosophy; Protestantism itself is its _peccatum\u003cbr /\u003eoriginale_. Definition of Protestantism: hemiplegic paralysis of\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity–_and_ of reason…. One need only utter the words\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;T\u0026#252;bingen School\u0026quot; to get an understanding of what German philosophy is\u003cbr /\u003eat bottom–a very artful form of theology…. The Suabians are the best\u003cbr /\u003eliars in Germany; they lie innocently…. Why all the rejoicing over\u003cbr /\u003ethe appearance of Kant that went through the learned world of Germany,\u003cbr /\u003ethree-fourths of which is made up of the sons of preachers and\u003cbr /\u003eteachers–why the German conviction still echoing, that with Kant came a\u003cbr /\u003echange for the _better_? The theological instinct of German scholars\u003cbr /\u003emade them see clearly just _what_ had become possible again…. A\u003cbr /\u003ebackstairs leading to the old ideal stood open; the concept of the \u0026quot;true\u003cbr /\u003eworld,\u0026quot; the concept of morality as the _essence_ of the world (–the two\u003cbr /\u003emost vicious errors that ever existed!), were once more, thanks to a\u003cbr /\u003esubtle and wily scepticism, if not actually demonstrable, then _at\u003cbr /\u003eleast_ no longer _refutable_…. _Reason_, the _prerogative_ of reason,\u003cbr /\u003edoes not go so far…. Out of reality there had been made \u0026quot;appearance\u0026quot;;\u003cbr /\u003ean absolutely false world, that of being, had been turned into\u003cbr /\u003ereality…. The success of Kant is merely a theological success; he was,\u003cbr /\u003elike Luther and Leibnitz, but one more impediment to German integrity,\u003cbr /\u003ealready far from steady.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e11.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be _our_ invention;\u003cbr /\u003eit must spring out of _our_ personal need and defence. In every other\u003cbr /\u003ecase it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life\u003cbr /\u003e_menaces_ it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the\u003cbr /\u003econcept of \u0026quot;virtue,\u0026quot; as Kant would have it, is pernicious. \u0026quot;Virtue,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;duty,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;good for its own sake,\u0026quot; goodness grounded upon impersonality or\u003cbr /\u003ea notion of universal validity–these are all chimeras, and in them one\u003cbr /\u003efinds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the\u003cbr /\u003eChinese spirit of K\u0026#246;nigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most\u003cbr /\u003eprofound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man\u003cbr /\u003efind his _own_ virtue, his _own_ categorical imperative. A nation goes\u003cbr /\u003eto pieces when it confounds _its_ duty with the general concept of duty.\u003cbr /\u003eNothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;impersonal\u0026quot; duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction.–To\u003cbr /\u003ethink that no one has thought of Kant\u0026#39;s categorical imperative as\u003cbr /\u003e_dangerous to life_!… The theological instinct alone took it under\u003cbr /\u003eprotection!–An action prompted by the life-instinct proves that it is a\u003cbr /\u003e_right_ action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it: and yet that\u003cbr /\u003eNihilist, with his bowels of Christian dogmatism, regarded pleasure as\u003cbr /\u003ean _objection_…. What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think\u003cbr /\u003eand feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire,\u003cbr /\u003ewithout pleasure–as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for\u003cbr /\u003e_d\u0026#233;cadence_, and no less for idiocy…. Kant became an idiot.–And such\u003cbr /\u003ea man was the contemporary of Goethe! This calamitous spinner of cobwebs\u003cbr /\u003epassed for _the_ German philosopher–still passes today!… I forbid\u003cbr /\u003emyself to say what I think of the Germans…. Didn\u0026#39;t Kant see in the\u003cbr /\u003eFrench Revolution the transformation of the state from the inorganic\u003cbr /\u003eform to the _organic_? Didn\u0026#39;t he ask himself if there was a single event\u003cbr /\u003ethat could be explained save on the assumption of a moral faculty in\u003cbr /\u003eman, so that on the basis of it, \u0026quot;the tendency of mankind toward the\u003cbr /\u003egood\u0026quot; could be _explained_, once and for all time? Kant\u0026#39;s answer: \u0026quot;That\u003cbr /\u003eis revolution.\u0026quot; Instinct at fault in everything and anything, instinct\u003cbr /\u003eas a revolt against nature, German _d\u0026#233;cadence_ as a philosophy–_that is\u003cbr /\u003eKant_!–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e12.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI put aside a few sceptics, the types of decency in the history of\u003cbr /\u003ephilosophy: the rest haven\u0026#39;t the slightest conception of intellectual\u003cbr /\u003eintegrity. They behave like women, all these great enthusiasts and\u003cbr /\u003eprodigies–they regard \u0026quot;beautiful feelings\u0026quot; as arguments, the \u0026quot;heaving\u003cbr /\u003ebreast\u0026quot; as the bellows of divine inspiration, conviction as the\u003cbr /\u003e_criterion_ of truth. In the end, with \u0026quot;German\u0026quot; innocence, Kant tried to\u003cbr /\u003egive a scientific flavour to this form of corruption, this dearth of\u003cbr /\u003eintellectual conscience, by calling it \u0026quot;practical reason.\u0026quot; He\u003cbr /\u003edeliberately invented a variety of reasons for use on occasions when it\u003cbr /\u003ewas desirable not to trouble with reason–that is, when morality, when\u003cbr /\u003ethe sublime command \u0026quot;thou shalt,\u0026quot; was heard. When one recalls the fact\u003cbr /\u003ethat, among all peoples, the philosopher is no more than a development\u003cbr /\u003efrom the old type of priest, this inheritance from the priest, this\u003cbr /\u003e_fraud upon self_, ceases to be remarkable. When a man feels that he has\u003cbr /\u003ea divine mission, say to lift up, to save or to liberate mankind–when a\u003cbr /\u003eman feels the divine spark in his heart and believes that he is the\u003cbr /\u003emouthpiece of supernatural imperatives–when such a mission inflames\u003cbr /\u003ehim, it is only natural that he should stand beyond all merely\u003cbr /\u003ereasonable standards of judgment. He feels that he is _himself_\u003cbr /\u003esanctified by this mission, that he is himself a type of a higher\u003cbr /\u003eorder!… What has a priest to do with philosophy! He stands far above\u003cbr /\u003eit!–And hitherto the priest has _ruled_!–He has determined the meaning\u003cbr /\u003eof \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;not true\u0026quot;!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e13.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eLet us not underestimate this fact: that _we\u003cbr /\u003eourselves_, we free spirits, are already a \u0026quot;transvaluation of all\u003cbr /\u003evalues,\u0026quot; a _visualized_ declaration of war and victory against all the\u003cbr /\u003eold concepts of \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;not true.\u0026quot; The most valuable intuitions are\u003cbr /\u003ethe last to be attained; the most valuable of all are those which\u003cbr /\u003edetermine _methods_. All the methods, all the principles of the\u003cbr /\u003escientific spirit of today, were the targets for thousands of years of\u003cbr /\u003ethe most profound contempt; if a man inclined to them he was excluded\u003cbr /\u003efrom the society of \u0026quot;decent\u0026quot; people–he passed as \u0026quot;an enemy of God,\u0026quot; as\u003cbr /\u003ea scoffer at the truth, as one \u0026quot;possessed.\u0026quot; As a man of science, he\u003cbr /\u003ebelonged to the Chandala[2]…. We have had the whole pathetic stupidity\u003cbr /\u003eof mankind against us–their every notion of what the truth _ought_ to\u003cbr /\u003ebe, of what the service of the truth _ought_ to be–their every \u0026quot;thou\u003cbr /\u003eshalt\u0026quot; was launched against us…. Our objectives, our methods, our\u003cbr /\u003equiet, cautious, distrustful manner–all appeared to them as absolutely\u003cbr /\u003ediscreditable and contemptible.–Looking back, one may almost ask one\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003eself with reason if it was not actually an _aesthetic_ sense that kept\u003cbr /\u003emen blind so long: what they demanded of the truth was picturesque\u003cbr /\u003eeffectiveness, and of the learned a strong appeal to their senses. It\u003cbr /\u003ewas our _modesty_ that stood out longest against their taste…. How\u003cbr /\u003ewell they guessed that, these turkey-cocks of God!\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[2] The lowest of the Hindu castes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e14.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWe have unlearned something. We have become more modest in every way. We\u003cbr /\u003eno longer derive man from the \u0026quot;spirit,\u0026quot; from the \u0026quot;godhead\u0026quot;; we have\u003cbr /\u003edropped him back among the beasts. We regard him as the strongest of the\u003cbr /\u003ebeasts because he is the craftiest; one of the results thereof is his\u003cbr /\u003eintellectuality. On the other hand, we guard ourselves against a conceit\u003cbr /\u003ewhich would assert itself even here: that man is the great second\u003cbr /\u003ethought in the process of organic evolution. He is, in truth, anything\u003cbr /\u003ebut the crown of creation: beside him stand many other animals, all at\u003cbr /\u003esimilar stages of development…. And even when we say that we say a bit\u003cbr /\u003etoo much, for man, relatively speaking, is the most botched of all the\u003cbr /\u003eanimals and the sickliest, and he has wandered the most dangerously from\u003cbr /\u003ehis instincts–though for all that, to be sure, he remains the most\u003cbr /\u003e_interesting_!–As regards the lower animals, it was Descartes who first\u003cbr /\u003ehad the really admirable daring to describe them as _machina_; the whole\u003cbr /\u003eof our physiology is directed toward proving the truth of this doctrine.\u003cbr /\u003eMoreover, it is illogical to set man apart, as Descartes did: what we\u003cbr /\u003eknow of man today is limited precisely by the extent to which we have\u003cbr /\u003eregarded him, too, as a machine. Formerly we accorded to man, as his\u003cbr /\u003einheritance from some higher order of beings, what was called \u0026quot;free\u003cbr /\u003ewill\u0026quot;; now we have taken even this will from him, for the term no longer\u003cbr /\u003edescribes anything that we can understand. The old word \u0026quot;will\u0026quot; now\u003cbr /\u003econnotes only a sort of result, an individual reaction, that follows\u003cbr /\u003einevitably upon a series of partly discordant and partly harmonious\u003cbr /\u003estimuli–the will no longer \u0026quot;acts,\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;moves.\u0026quot;… Formerly it was\u003cbr /\u003ethought that man\u0026#39;s consciousness, his \u0026quot;spirit,\u0026quot; offered evidence of his\u003cbr /\u003ehigh origin, his divinity. That he might be _perfected_, he was advised,\u003cbr /\u003etortoise-like, to draw his senses in, to have no traffic with earthly\u003cbr /\u003ethings, to shuffle off his mortal coil–then only the important part of\u003cbr /\u003ehim, the \u0026quot;pure spirit,\u0026quot; would remain. Here again we have thought out the\u003cbr /\u003ething better: to us consciousness, or \u0026quot;the spirit,\u0026quot; appears as a symptom\u003cbr /\u003eof a relative imperfection of the organism, as an experiment, a groping,\u003cbr /\u003ea misunderstanding, as an affliction which uses up nervous force\u003cbr /\u003eunnecessarily–we deny that anything can be done perfectly so long as it\u003cbr /\u003eis done consciously. The \u0026quot;pure spirit\u0026quot; is a piece of pure stupidity:\u003cbr /\u003etake away the nervous system and the senses, the so-called \u0026quot;mortal\u003cbr /\u003eshell,\u0026quot; and _the rest is miscalculation_–that is all!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e15.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eUnder Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of\u003cbr /\u003econtact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary _causes_ (\u0026quot;God,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;soul,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;ego,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;spirit,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;free will\u0026quot;–or even \u0026quot;unfree\u0026quot;), and purely\u003cbr /\u003eimaginary _effects_ (\u0026quot;sin,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;salvation,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;grace,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;punishment,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;forgiveness of sins\u0026quot;). Intercourse between imaginary _beings_ (\u0026quot;God,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;spirits,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;souls\u0026quot;); an imaginary _natural history_ (anthropocentric; a\u003cbr /\u003etotal denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary\u003cbr /\u003e_psychology_ (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable\u003cbr /\u003eor disagreeable general feelings–for example, of the states of the\u003cbr /\u003e_nervus sympathicus_ with the help of the sign-language of\u003cbr /\u003ereligio-ethical balderdash–, \u0026quot;repentance,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;pangs of conscience,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;temptation by the devil,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the presence of God\u0026quot;); an imaginary\u003cbr /\u003e_teleology_ (the \u0026quot;kingdom of God,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the last judgment,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;eternal\u003cbr /\u003elife\u0026quot;).–This purely _fictitious world_, greatly to its disadvantage, is\u003cbr /\u003eto be differentiated from the world of dreams; the latter at least\u003cbr /\u003ereflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and\u003cbr /\u003edenies it. Once the concept of \u0026quot;nature\u0026quot; had been opposed to the concept\u003cbr /\u003eof \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot; the word \u0026quot;natural\u0026quot; necessarily took on the meaning of\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;abominable\u0026quot;–the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in\u003cbr /\u003ehatred of the natural (–the real!–), and is no more than evidence of a\u003cbr /\u003eprofound uneasiness in the presence of reality…. _This explains\u003cbr /\u003eeverything._ Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality?\u003cbr /\u003eThe man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a\u003cbr /\u003e_botched_ reality…. The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the\u003cbr /\u003ecause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance\u003cbr /\u003ealso supplies the formula for _d\u0026#233;cadence_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e16.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eA criticism of the _Christian concept of God_ leads inevitably to the\u003cbr /\u003esame conclusion.–A nation that still believes in itself holds fast to\u003cbr /\u003eits own god. In him it does honour to the conditions which enable it to\u003cbr /\u003esurvive, to its virtues–it projects its joy in itself, its feeling of\u003cbr /\u003epower, into a being to whom one may offer thanks. He who is rich will\u003cbr /\u003egive of his riches; a proud people need a god to whom they can make\u003cbr /\u003e_sacrifices_…. Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude.\u003cbr /\u003eA man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a\u003cbr /\u003egod.–Such a god must be able to work both benefits and injuries; he\u003cbr /\u003emust be able to play either friend or foe–he is wondered at for the\u003cbr /\u003egood he does as well as for the evil he does. But the castration,\u003cbr /\u003eagainst all nature, of such a god, making him a god of goodness alone,\u003cbr /\u003ewould be contrary to human inclination. Mankind has just as much need\u003cbr /\u003efor an evil god as for a good god; it doesn\u0026#39;t have to thank mere\u003cbr /\u003etolerance and humanitarianism for its own existence…. What would be\u003cbr /\u003ethe value of a god who knew nothing of anger, revenge, envy, scorn,\u003cbr /\u003ecunning, violence? who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous\u003cbr /\u003e_ardeurs_ of victory and of destruction? No one would understand such a\u003cbr /\u003egod: why should any one want him?–True enough, when a nation is on the\u003cbr /\u003edownward path, when it feels its belief in its own future, its hope of\u003cbr /\u003efreedom slipping from it, when it begins to see submission as a first\u003cbr /\u003enecessity and the virtues of submission as measures of self-preservation,\u003cbr /\u003ethen it _must_ overhaul its god. He then becomes a hypocrite, timorous\u003cbr /\u003eand demure; he counsels \u0026quot;peace of soul,\u0026quot; hate-no-more, leniency, \u0026quot;love\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eof friend and foe. He moralizes endlessly; he creeps into every private\u003cbr /\u003evirtue; he becomes the god of every man; he becomes a private citizen, a\u003cbr /\u003ecosmopolitan…. Formerly he represented a people, the strength of a\u003cbr /\u003epeople, everything aggressive and thirsty for power in the soul of a\u003cbr /\u003epeople; now he is simply _the good god_…. The truth is that there is\u003cbr /\u003eno other alternative for gods: _either_ they are the will to power–in\u003cbr /\u003ewhich case they are national gods–_or_ incapacity for power–in which\u003cbr /\u003ecase they have to be good….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e17.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWherever the will to power begins to decline, in whatever form, there is\u003cbr /\u003ealways an accompanying decline physiologically, a _d\u0026#233;cadence_. The\u003cbr /\u003edivinity of this _d\u0026#233;cadence_, shorn of its masculine virtues and\u003cbr /\u003epassions, is converted perforce into a god of the physiologically\u003cbr /\u003edegraded, of the weak. Of course, they do not _call_ themselves the\u003cbr /\u003eweak; they call themselves \u0026quot;the good.\u0026quot;… No hint is needed to indicate\u003cbr /\u003ethe moments in history at which the dualistic fiction of a good and an\u003cbr /\u003eevil god first became possible. The same instinct which prompts the\u003cbr /\u003einferior to reduce their own god to \u0026quot;goodness-in-itself\u0026quot; also prompts\u003cbr /\u003ethem to eliminate all good qualities from the god of their superiors;\u003cbr /\u003ethey make revenge on their masters by making a _devil_ of the latter\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003egod.–The _good_ god, and the devil like him–both are abortions of\u003cbr /\u003e_d\u0026#233;cadence_.–How can we be so tolerant of the na\u0026#239;vet\u0026#233; of Christian\u003cbr /\u003etheologians as to join in their doctrine that the evolution of the\u003cbr /\u003econcept of god from \u0026quot;the god of Israel,\u0026quot; the god of a people, to the\u003cbr /\u003eChristian god, the essence of all goodness, is to be described as\u003cbr /\u003e_progress_?–But even Renan does this. As if Renan had a right to be\u003cbr /\u003ena\u0026#239;ve! The contrary actually stares one in the face. When everything\u003cbr /\u003enecessary to _ascending_ life; when all that is strong, courageous,\u003cbr /\u003emasterful and proud has been eliminated from the concept of a god; when\u003cbr /\u003ehe has sunk step by step to the level of a staff for the weary, a\u003cbr /\u003esheet-anchor for the drowning; when he becomes the poor man\u0026#39;s god, the\u003cbr /\u003esinner\u0026#39;s god, the invalid\u0026#39;s god _par excellence_, and the attribute of\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;saviour\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;redeemer\u0026quot; remains as the one essential attribute of\u003cbr /\u003edivinity–just _what_ is the significance of such a metamorphosis?\u003cbr /\u003ewhat does such a _reduction_ of the godhead imply?–To be\u003cbr /\u003esure, the \u0026quot;kingdom of God\u0026quot; has thus grown larger. Formerly he had only\u003cbr /\u003ehis own people, his \u0026quot;chosen\u0026quot; people. But since then he has gone\u003cbr /\u003ewandering, like his people themselves, into foreign parts; he has given\u003cbr /\u003eup settling down quietly anywhere; finally he has come to feel at home\u003cbr /\u003eeverywhere, and is the great cosmopolitan–until now he has the \u0026quot;great\u003cbr /\u003emajority\u0026quot; on his side, and half the earth. But this god of the \u0026quot;great\u003cbr /\u003emajority,\u0026quot; this democrat among gods, has not become a proud heathen god:\u003cbr /\u003eon the contrary, he remains a Jew, he remains a god in a corner, a god\u003cbr /\u003eof all the dark nooks and crevices, of all the noisesome quarters of the\u003cbr /\u003eworld!… His earthly kingdom, now as always, is a kingdom of the\u003cbr /\u003eunderworld, a _souterrain_ kingdom, a ghetto kingdom…. And he himself\u003cbr /\u003eis so pale, so weak, so _d\u0026#233;cadent_…. Even the palest of the pale are\u003cbr /\u003eable to master him–messieurs the metaphysicians, those albinos of the\u003cbr /\u003eintellect. They spun their webs around him for so long that finally he\u003cbr /\u003ewas hypnotized, and began to spin himself, and became another\u003cbr /\u003emetaphysician. Thereafter he resumed once more his old business of\u003cbr /\u003espinning the world out of his inmost being _sub specie Spinozae_;\u003cbr /\u003ethereafter he became ever thinner and paler–became the \u0026quot;ideal,\u0026quot; became\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;pure spirit,\u0026quot; became \u0026quot;the absolute,\u0026quot; became \u0026quot;the thing-in-itself.\u0026quot;…\u003cbr /\u003e_The collapse of a god_: he became a \u0026quot;thing-in-itself.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e18.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Christian concept of a god–the god as the patron of the sick, the\u003cbr /\u003egod as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit–is one of the most\u003cbr /\u003ecorrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably\u003cbr /\u003etouches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God\u003cbr /\u003edegenerated into the _contradiction of life_. Instead of being its\u003cbr /\u003etransfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on\u003cbr /\u003enature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander\u003cbr /\u003eupon the \u0026quot;here and now,\u0026quot; and for every lie about the \u0026quot;beyond\u0026quot;! In him\u003cbr /\u003enothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e19.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe fact that the strong races of northern Europe did not repudiate this\u003cbr /\u003eChristian god does little credit to their gift for religion–and not\u003cbr /\u003emuch more to their taste. They ought to have been able to make an end of\u003cbr /\u003esuch a moribund and worn-out product of the _d\u0026#233;cadence_. A curse lies\u003cbr /\u003eupon them because they were not equal to it; they made illness,\u003cbr /\u003edecrepitude and contradiction a part of their instincts–and since then\u003cbr /\u003ethey have not managed to _create_ any more gods. Two thousand years have\u003cbr /\u003ecome and gone–and not a single new god! Instead, there still exists,\u003cbr /\u003eand as if by some intrinsic right,–as if he were the _ultimatum_ and\u003cbr /\u003e_maximum_ of the power to create gods, of the _creator spiritus_ in\u003cbr /\u003emankind–this pitiful god of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid\u003cbr /\u003eimage of decay, conjured up out of emptiness, contradiction and vain\u003cbr /\u003eimagining, in which all the instincts of _d\u0026#233;cadence_, all the cowardices\u003cbr /\u003eand wearinesses of the soul find their sanction!–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e20.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a\u003cbr /\u003erelated religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to\u003cbr /\u003e_Buddhism_. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions–they\u003cbr /\u003eare both _d\u0026#233;cadence_ religions–but they are separated from each other\u003cbr /\u003ein a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to _compare_ them\u003cbr /\u003eat all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of\u003cbr /\u003eIndia.–Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity–it is\u003cbr /\u003epart of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively\u003cbr /\u003eand coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical\u003cbr /\u003especulation. The concept, \u0026quot;god,\u0026quot; was already disposed of before it\u003cbr /\u003eappeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely _positive_ religion to be\u003cbr /\u003eencountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which\u003cbr /\u003eis a strict phenomenalism). It does not speak of a \u0026quot;struggle with sin,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003ebut, yielding to reality, of the \u0026quot;struggle with suffering.\u0026quot; Sharply\u003cbr /\u003edifferentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception\u003cbr /\u003ethat lies in moral concepts behind it; it is, in my phrase, _beyond_\u003cbr /\u003egood and evil.–The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself\u003cbr /\u003eand upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive\u003cbr /\u003esensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined\u003cbr /\u003esusceptibility to pain, and _secondly_, an extraordinary spirituality, a\u003cbr /\u003etoo protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the\u003cbr /\u003einfluence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion\u003cbr /\u003eof the \u0026quot;impersonal.\u0026quot; (–Both of these states will be familiar to a few\u003cbr /\u003eof my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me).\u003cbr /\u003eThese physiological states produced a _depression_, and Buddha tried to\u003cbr /\u003ecombat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the\u003cbr /\u003eopen, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of\u003cbr /\u003efoods; caution in the use of intoxicants; the same caution in arousing\u003cbr /\u003eany of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood;\u003cbr /\u003efinally, no _worry_, either on one\u0026#39;s own account or on account of\u003cbr /\u003eothers. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or\u003cbr /\u003egood cheer–he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts. He\u003cbr /\u003eunderstands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes\u003cbr /\u003ehealth. _Prayer_ is not included, and neither is _asceticism_. There is\u003cbr /\u003eno categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of\u003cbr /\u003ea monastery (–it is always possible to leave–). These things would\u003cbr /\u003ehave been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above\u003cbr /\u003ementioned. For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with\u003cbr /\u003eunbelievers; his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to\u003cbr /\u003erevenge, aversion, _ressentiment_ (–\u0026quot;enmity never brings an end to\u003cbr /\u003eenmity\u0026quot;: the moving refrain of all Buddhism….) And in all this he was\u003cbr /\u003eright, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main\u003cbr /\u003eregiminal purpose, are _unhealthful_. The mental fatigue that he\u003cbr /\u003eobserves, already plainly displayed in too much \u0026quot;objectivity\u0026quot; (that is,\u003cbr /\u003ein the individual\u0026#39;s loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and\u003cbr /\u003eof \u0026quot;egoism\u0026quot;), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual\u003cbr /\u003einterests back to the _ego_. In Buddha\u0026#39;s teaching egoism is a duty. The\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;one thing needful,\u0026quot; the question \u0026quot;how can you be delivered from\u003cbr /\u003esuffering,\u0026quot; regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet.\u003cbr /\u003e(–Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon\u003cbr /\u003epure \u0026quot;scientificality,\u0026quot; to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to\u003cbr /\u003ethe estate of a morality).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e21.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe things necessary to Buddhism are a very mild climate, customs of\u003cbr /\u003egreat gentleness and liberality, and _no_ militarism; moreover, it must\u003cbr /\u003eget its start among the higher and better educated classes.\u003cbr /\u003eCheerfulness, quiet and the absence of desire are the chief desiderata,\u003cbr /\u003eand they are _attained_. Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection\u003cbr /\u003eis merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eUnder Christianity the instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed\u003cbr /\u003ecome to the fore: it is only those who are at the bottom who seek their\u003cbr /\u003esalvation in it. Here the prevailing pastime, the favourite remedy for\u003cbr /\u003eboredom is the discussion of sin, self-criticism, the inquisition of\u003cbr /\u003econscience; here the emotion produced by _power_ (called \u0026quot;God\u0026quot;) is\u003cbr /\u003epumped up (by prayer); here the highest good is regarded as\u003cbr /\u003eunattainable, as a gift, as \u0026quot;grace.\u0026quot; Here, too, open dealing is lacking;\u003cbr /\u003econcealment and the darkened room are Christian. Here body is despised\u003cbr /\u003eand hygiene is denounced as sensual; the church even ranges itself\u003cbr /\u003eagainst cleanliness (–the first Christian order after the banishment of\u003cbr /\u003ethe Moors closed the public baths, of which there were 270 in Cordova\u003cbr /\u003ealone). Christian, too, is a certain cruelty toward one\u0026#39;s self and\u003cbr /\u003etoward others; hatred of unbelievers; the will to persecute. Sombre and\u003cbr /\u003edisquieting ideas are in the foreground; the most esteemed states of\u003cbr /\u003emind, bearing the most respectable names, are epileptoid; the diet is so\u003cbr /\u003eregulated as to engender morbid symptoms and over-stimulate the nerves.\u003cbr /\u003eChristian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to\u003cbr /\u003ethe \u0026quot;aristocratic\u0026quot;–along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (–one\u003cbr /\u003eresigns one\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;body\u0026quot; to them; one wants _only_ one\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;soul\u0026quot;…). And\u003cbr /\u003eChristian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage, of\u003cbr /\u003efreedom, of intellectual _libertinage_; Christian is all hatred of the\u003cbr /\u003esenses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e22.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen Christianity departed from its native soil, that of the lowest\u003cbr /\u003eorders, the _underworld_ of the ancient world, and began seeking power\u003cbr /\u003eamong barbarian peoples, it no longer had to deal with _exhausted_ men,\u003cbr /\u003ebut with men still inwardly savage and capable of self-torture–in\u003cbr /\u003ebrief, strong men, but bungled men. Here, unlike in the case of the\u003cbr /\u003eBuddhists, the cause of discontent with self, suffering through self, is\u003cbr /\u003e_not_ merely a general sensitiveness and susceptibility to pain, but, on\u003cbr /\u003ethe contrary, an inordinate thirst for inflicting pain on others, a\u003cbr /\u003etendency to obtain subjective satisfaction in hostile deeds and ideas.\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity had to embrace _barbaric_ concepts and valuations in order\u003cbr /\u003eto obtain mastery over barbarians: of such sort, for example, are the\u003cbr /\u003esacrifices of the first-born, the drinking of blood as a sacrament, the\u003cbr /\u003edisdain of the intellect and of culture; torture in all its forms,\u003cbr /\u003ewhether bodily or not; the whole pomp of the cult. Buddhism is a\u003cbr /\u003ereligion for peoples in a further state of development, for races that\u003cbr /\u003ehave become kind, gentle and over-spiritualized (–Europe is not yet\u003cbr /\u003eripe for it–): it is a summons that takes them back to peace and\u003cbr /\u003echeerfulness, to a careful rationing of the spirit, to a certain\u003cbr /\u003ehardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering _beasts of prey_;\u003cbr /\u003eits modus operandi is to make them _ill_–to make feeble is the\u003cbr /\u003eChristian recipe for taming, for \u0026quot;_civilizing_.\u0026quot; Buddhism is a religion\u003cbr /\u003efor the closing, over-wearied stages of civilization. Christianity\u003cbr /\u003eappears before civilization has so much as begun–under certain\u003cbr /\u003ecircumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e23.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBuddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more\u003cbr /\u003eobjective. It no longer has to _justify_ its pains, its susceptibility\u003cbr /\u003eto suffering, by interpreting these things in terms of sin–it simply\u003cbr /\u003esays, as it simply thinks, \u0026quot;I suffer.\u0026quot; To the barbarian, however,\u003cbr /\u003esuffering in itself is scarcely understandable: what he needs, first of\u003cbr /\u003eall, is an explanation as to _why_ he suffers. (His mere instinct\u003cbr /\u003eprompts him to deny his suffering altogether, or to endure it in\u003cbr /\u003esilence.) Here the word \u0026quot;devil\u0026quot; was a blessing: man had to have an\u003cbr /\u003eomnipotent and terrible enemy–there was no need to be ashamed of\u003cbr /\u003esuffering at the hands of such an enemy.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAt the bottom of Christianity there are several subtleties that belong\u003cbr /\u003eto the Orient. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little\u003cbr /\u003econsequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is _believed_\u003cbr /\u003eto be true. Truth and _faith_: here we have two wholly distinct worlds\u003cbr /\u003eof ideas, almost two diametrically _opposite_ worlds–the road to the\u003cbr /\u003eone and the road to the other lie miles apart. To understand that fact\u003cbr /\u003ethoroughly–this is almost enough, in the Orient, to _make_ one a sage.\u003cbr /\u003eThe Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows\u003cbr /\u003eit. When, for example, a man gets any _pleasure_ out of the notion that\u003cbr /\u003ehe has been saved from sin, it is _not_ necessary for him to be actually\u003cbr /\u003esinful, but merely to _feel_ sinful. But when _faith_ is thus exalted\u003cbr /\u003eabove everything else, it necessarily follows that reason, knowledge and\u003cbr /\u003epatient inquiry have to be discredited: the road to the truth becomes a\u003cbr /\u003eforbidden road.–Hope, in its stronger forms, is a great deal more\u003cbr /\u003epowerful _stimulans_ to life than any sort of realized joy can ever be.\u003cbr /\u003eMan must be sustained in suffering by a hope so high that no conflict\u003cbr /\u003ewith actuality can dash it–so high, indeed, that no fulfilment can\u003cbr /\u003e_satisfy_ it: a hope reaching out beyond this world. (Precisely because\u003cbr /\u003eof this power that hope has of making the suffering hold out, the Greeks\u003cbr /\u003eregarded it as the evil of evils, as the most _malign_ of evils; it\u003cbr /\u003eremained behind at the source of all evil.)[3]–In order that _love_ may\u003cbr /\u003ebe possible, God must become a person; in order that the lower instincts\u003cbr /\u003emay take a hand in the matter God must be young. To satisfy the ardor of\u003cbr /\u003ethe woman a beautiful saint must appear on the scene, and to satisfy\u003cbr /\u003ethat of the men there must be a virgin. These things are necessary if\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity is to assume lordship over a soil on which some\u003cbr /\u003eaphrodisiacal or Adonis cult has already established a notion as to what\u003cbr /\u003ea cult ought to be. To insist upon _chastity_ greatly strengthens the\u003cbr /\u003evehemence and subjectivity of the religious instinct–it makes the cult\u003cbr /\u003ewarmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful.–Love is the state in which man\u003cbr /\u003esees things most decidedly as they are _not_. The force of illusion\u003cbr /\u003ereaches its highest here, and so does the capacity for sweetening, for\u003cbr /\u003e_transfiguring_. When a man is in love he endures more than at any other\u003cbr /\u003etime; he submits to anything. The problem was to devise a religion which\u003cbr /\u003ewould allow one to love: by this means the worst that life has to offer\u003cbr /\u003eis overcome–it is scarcely even noticed.–So much for the three\u003cbr /\u003eChristian virtues: faith, hope and charity: I call them the three\u003cbr /\u003eChristian _ingenuities_.–Buddhism is in too late a stage of\u003cbr /\u003edevelopment, too full of positivism, to be shrewd in any such way.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[3] That is, in Pandora\u0026#39;s box.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e24.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere I barely touch upon the problem of the _origin_ of Christianity.\u003cbr /\u003eThe _first_ thing necessary to its solution is this: that Christianity\u003cbr /\u003eis to be understood only by examining the soil from which it sprung–it\u003cbr /\u003eis _not_ a reaction against Jewish instincts; it is their inevitable\u003cbr /\u003eproduct; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic of the\u003cbr /\u003eJews. In the words of the Saviour, \u0026quot;salvation is of the Jews.\u0026quot;[4]–The\u003cbr /\u003e_second_ thing to remember is this: that the psychological type of the\u003cbr /\u003eGalilean is still to be recognized, but it was only in its most\u003cbr /\u003edegenerate form (which is at once maimed and overladen with foreign\u003cbr /\u003efeatures) that it could serve in the manner in which it has been used:\u003cbr /\u003eas a type of the _Saviour_ of mankind.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[4] John\u0026#160;iv, 22.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for\u003cbr /\u003ewhen they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they\u003cbr /\u003echose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be _at any price_: this\u003cbr /\u003eprice involved a radical _falsification_ of all nature, of all\u003cbr /\u003enaturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of\u003cbr /\u003ethe outer. They put themselves _against_ all those conditions under\u003cbr /\u003ewhich, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been\u003cbr /\u003e_permitted_ to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood\u003cbr /\u003ein direct opposition to _natural_ conditions–one by one they distorted\u003cbr /\u003ereligion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each\u003cbr /\u003ebecame a _contradiction_ of its _natural significance_. We meet with the\u003cbr /\u003esame phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only\u003cbr /\u003eas a copy: the Christian church, put beside the \u0026quot;people of God,\u0026quot; shows a\u003cbr /\u003ecomplete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the\u003cbr /\u003eJews are the most _fateful_ people in the history of the world: their\u003cbr /\u003einfluence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that\u003cbr /\u003etoday the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it\u003cbr /\u003eis no more than the _final consequence of Judaism_.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn my \u0026quot;Genealogy of Morals\u0026quot; I give the first psychological explanation\u003cbr /\u003eof the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a _noble_\u003cbr /\u003emorality and a _ressentiment_ morality, the second of which is a mere\u003cbr /\u003eproduct of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system\u003cbr /\u003ebelongs to the second division, and in every detail. In order to be able\u003cbr /\u003eto say Nay to everything representing an _ascending_ evolution of\u003cbr /\u003elife–that is, to well-being, to power, to beauty, to self-approval–the\u003cbr /\u003einstincts of _ressentiment_, here become downright genius, had to invent\u003cbr /\u003ean _other_ world in which the _acceptance of life_ appeared as the most\u003cbr /\u003eevil and abominable thing imaginable. Psychologically, the Jews are a\u003cbr /\u003epeople gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when\u003cbr /\u003ethey found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose\u003cbr /\u003evoluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side\u003cbr /\u003eof all those instincts which make for _d\u0026#233;cadence_–_not_ as if mastered\u003cbr /\u003eby them, but as if detecting in them a power by which \u0026quot;the world\u0026quot; could\u003cbr /\u003ebe _defied_. The Jews are the very opposite of _d\u0026#233;cadents_: they have\u003cbr /\u003esimply been forced into _appearing_ in that guise, and with a degree of\u003cbr /\u003eskill approaching the _non plus ultra_ of histrionic genius they have\u003cbr /\u003emanaged to put themselves at the head of all _d\u0026#233;cadent_ movements (–for\u003cbr /\u003eexample, the Christianity of Paul–), and so make of them something\u003cbr /\u003estronger than any party frankly saying _Yes_ to life. To the sort of\u003cbr /\u003emen who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,–that is to\u003cbr /\u003esay, to the _priestly_ class–_d\u0026#233;cadence_ is no more than a means to an\u003cbr /\u003eend. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and\u003cbr /\u003ein confusing the values of \u0026quot;good\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;bad,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;false\u0026quot; in a\u003cbr /\u003emanner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e25.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe history of Israel is invaluable as a typical history of an attempt\u003cbr /\u003eto _denaturize_ all natural values: I point to five facts which bear\u003cbr /\u003ethis out. Originally, and above all in the time of the monarchy, Israel\u003cbr /\u003emaintained the _right_ attitude of things, which is to say, the natural\u003cbr /\u003eattitude. Its Jahveh was an expression of its consciousness of power,\u003cbr /\u003eits joy in itself, its hopes for itself: to him the Jews looked for\u003cbr /\u003evictory and salvation and through him they expected nature to give them\u003cbr /\u003ewhatever was necessary to their existence–above all, rain. Jahveh is\u003cbr /\u003ethe god of Israel, and _consequently_ the god of justice: this is the\u003cbr /\u003elogic of every race that has power in its hands and a good conscience in\u003cbr /\u003ethe use of it. In the religious ceremonial of the Jews both aspects of\u003cbr /\u003ethis self-approval stand revealed. The nation is grateful for the high\u003cbr /\u003edestiny that has enabled it to obtain dominion; it is grateful for the\u003cbr /\u003ebenign procession of the seasons, and for the good fortune attending its\u003cbr /\u003eherds and its crops.–This view of things remained an ideal for a long\u003cbr /\u003ewhile, even after it had been robbed of validity by tragic blows:\u003cbr /\u003eanarchy within and the Assyrian without. But the people still retained,\u003cbr /\u003eas a projection of their highest yearnings, that vision of a king who\u003cbr /\u003ewas at once a gallant warrior and an upright judge–a vision best\u003cbr /\u003evisualized in the typical prophet (_i. e._, critic and satirist of the\u003cbr /\u003emoment), Isaiah.–But every hope remained unfulfilled. The old god no\u003cbr /\u003elonger _could_ do what he used to do. He ought to have been abandoned.\u003cbr /\u003eBut what actually happened? Simply this: the conception of him was\u003cbr /\u003e_changed_–the conception of him was _denaturized_; this was the price\u003cbr /\u003ethat had to be paid for keeping him.–Jahveh, the god of \u0026quot;justice\u0026quot;–he\u003cbr /\u003eis in accord with Israel _no more_, he no longer vizualizes the national\u003cbr /\u003eegoism; he is now a god only conditionally…. The public notion of this\u003cbr /\u003egod now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators, who\u003cbr /\u003einterpret all happiness as a reward and all unhappiness as a punishment\u003cbr /\u003efor obedience or disobedience to him, for \u0026quot;sin\u0026quot;: that most fraudulent of\u003cbr /\u003eall imaginable interpretations, whereby a \u0026quot;moral order of the world\u0026quot; is\u003cbr /\u003eset up, and the fundamental concepts, \u0026quot;cause\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;effect,\u0026quot; are stood on\u003cbr /\u003etheir heads. Once natural causation has been swept out of the world by\u003cbr /\u003edoctrines of reward and punishment some sort of _un_-natural causation\u003cbr /\u003ebecomes necessary: and all other varieties of the denial of nature\u003cbr /\u003efollow it. A god who _demands_–in place of a god who helps, who gives\u003cbr /\u003ecounsel, who is at bottom merely a name for every happy inspiration of\u003cbr /\u003ecourage and self-reliance…. _Morality_ is no longer a reflection of\u003cbr /\u003ethe conditions which make for the sound life and development of the\u003cbr /\u003epeople; it is no longer the primary life-instinct; instead it has become\u003cbr /\u003eabstract and in opposition to life–a fundamental perversion of the\u003cbr /\u003efancy, an \u0026quot;evil eye\u0026quot; on all things. _What_ is Jewish, _what_ is\u003cbr /\u003eChristian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness polluted\u003cbr /\u003ewith the idea of \u0026quot;sin\u0026quot;; well-being represented as a danger, as a\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;temptation\u0026quot;; a physiological disorder produced by the canker worm of\u003cbr /\u003econscience….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e26.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of god falsified; the concept of morality falsified;–but\u003cbr /\u003eeven here Jewish priest-craft did not stop. The whole history of Israel\u003cbr /\u003eceased to be of any value: out with it!–These priests accomplished that\u003cbr /\u003emiracle of falsification of which a great part of the Bible is the\u003cbr /\u003edocumentary evidence; with a degree of contempt unparalleled, and in the\u003cbr /\u003eface of all tradition and all historical reality, they translated the\u003cbr /\u003epast of their people into _religious_ terms, which is to say, they\u003cbr /\u003econverted it into an idiotic mechanism of salvation, whereby all\u003cbr /\u003eoffences against Jahveh were punished and all devotion to him was\u003cbr /\u003erewarded. We would regard this act of historical falsification as\u003cbr /\u003esomething far more shameful if familiarity with the _ecclesiastical_\u003cbr /\u003einterpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our\u003cbr /\u003einclinations for uprightness _in historicis_. And the philosophers\u003cbr /\u003esupport the church: the _lie_ about a \u0026quot;moral order of the world\u0026quot; runs\u003cbr /\u003ethrough the whole of philosophy, even the newest. What is the meaning\u003cbr /\u003eof a \u0026quot;moral order of the world\u0026quot;? That there is a thing called the will\u003cbr /\u003eof God which, once and for all time, determines what man ought to do and\u003cbr /\u003ewhat he ought not to do; that the worth of a people, or of an individual\u003cbr /\u003ethereof, is to be measured by the extent to which they or he obey this\u003cbr /\u003ewill of God; that the destinies of a people or of an individual are\u003cbr /\u003e_controlled_ by this will of God, which rewards or punishes according to\u003cbr /\u003ethe degree of obedience manifested.–In place of all that pitiable lie\u003cbr /\u003e_reality_ has this to say: the _priest_, a parasitical variety of man\u003cbr /\u003ewho can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life, takes the\u003cbr /\u003ename of God in vain: he calls that state of human society in which he\u003cbr /\u003ehimself determines the value of all things \u0026quot;the kingdom of God\u0026quot;; he\u003cbr /\u003ecalls the means whereby that state of affairs is attained \u0026quot;the will of\u003cbr /\u003eGod\u0026quot;; with cold-blooded cynicism he estimates all peoples, all ages and\u003cbr /\u003eall individuals by the extent of their subservience or opposition to the\u003cbr /\u003epower of the priestly order. One observes him at work: under the hand of\u003cbr /\u003ethe Jewish priesthood the _great_ age of Israel became an age of\u003cbr /\u003edecline; the Exile, with its long series of misfortunes, was\u003cbr /\u003etransformed into a _punishment_ for that great age–during which priests\u003cbr /\u003ehad not yet come into existence. Out of the powerful and _wholly free_\u003cbr /\u003eheroes of Israel\u0026#39;s history they fashioned, according to their changing\u003cbr /\u003eneeds, either wretched bigots and hypocrites or men entirely \u0026quot;godless.\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eThey reduced every great event to the idiotic formula: \u0026quot;obedient _or_\u003cbr /\u003edisobedient to God.\u0026quot;–They went a step further: the \u0026quot;will of God\u0026quot; (in\u003cbr /\u003eother words some means necessary for preserving the power of the\u003cbr /\u003epriests) had to be _determined_–and to this end they had to have a\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;revelation.\u0026quot; In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be\u003cbr /\u003eperpetrated, and \u0026quot;holy scriptures\u0026quot; had to be concocted–and so, with the\u003cbr /\u003eutmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over\u003cbr /\u003ethe long days of \u0026quot;sin\u0026quot; now ended, they were duly published. The \u0026quot;will of\u003cbr /\u003eGod,\u0026quot; it appears, had long stood like a rock; the trouble was that\u003cbr /\u003emankind had neglected the \u0026quot;holy scriptures\u0026quot;…. But the \u0026quot;will of God\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003ehad already been revealed to Moses…. What happened? Simply this: the\u003cbr /\u003epriest had formulated, once and for all time and with the strictest\u003cbr /\u003emeticulousness, what tithes were to be paid to him, from the largest to\u003cbr /\u003ethe smallest (–not forgetting the most appetizing cuts of meat, for\u003cbr /\u003ethe priest is a great consumer of beefsteaks); in brief, he let it be\u003cbr /\u003eknown just _what he wanted_, what \u0026quot;the will of God\u0026quot; was…. From this\u003cbr /\u003etime forward things were so arranged that the priest became\u003cbr /\u003e_indispensable everywhere_; at all the great natural events of life, at\u003cbr /\u003ebirth, at marriage, in sickness, at death, not to say at the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;_sacrifice_\u0026quot; (that is, at meal-times), the holy parasite put in his\u003cbr /\u003eappearance, and proceeded to _denaturize_ it–in his own phrase, to\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;sanctify\u0026quot; it…. For this should be noted: that every natural habit,\u003cbr /\u003eevery natural institution (the state, the administration of justice,\u003cbr /\u003emarriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by\u003cbr /\u003ethe life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value _in itself_,\u003cbr /\u003eis reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the _reverse_ of\u003cbr /\u003evaluable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the \u0026quot;moral\u003cbr /\u003eorder of the world\u0026quot;). The fact requires a sanction–a power to _grant\u003cbr /\u003evalues_ becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such values is\u003cbr /\u003eby denying nature…. The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it\u003cbr /\u003eis only at this price that he can exist at all.–Disobedience to God,\u003cbr /\u003ewhich actually means to the priest, to \u0026quot;the law,\u0026quot; now gets the name of\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;sin\u0026quot;; the means prescribed for \u0026quot;reconciliation with God\u0026quot; are, of\u003cbr /\u003ecourse, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the\u003cbr /\u003ethumb of the priest; he alone can \u0026quot;save\u0026quot;…. Psychologically considered,\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;sins\u0026quot; are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical\u003cbr /\u003ebasis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest _lives_\u003cbr /\u003eupon sins; it is necessary to him that there be \u0026quot;sinning\u0026quot;…. Prime\u003cbr /\u003eaxiom: \u0026quot;God forgiveth him that repenteth\u0026quot;–in plain English, _him that\u003cbr /\u003esubmitteth to the priest_.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e27.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity sprang from a soil so corrupt that on it everything\u003cbr /\u003enatural, every natural value, every _reality_ was opposed by the deepest\u003cbr /\u003einstincts of the ruling class–it grew up as a sort of war to the death\u003cbr /\u003eupon reality, and as such it has never been surpassed. The \u0026quot;holy\u003cbr /\u003epeople,\u0026quot; who had adopted priestly values and priestly names for all\u003cbr /\u003ethings, and who, with a terrible logical consistency, had rejected\u003cbr /\u003eeverything of the earth as \u0026quot;unholy,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;worldly,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;sinful\u0026quot;–this people\u003cbr /\u003eput its instinct into a final formula that was logical to the point of\u003cbr /\u003eself-annihilation: as _Christianity_ it actually denied even the last\u003cbr /\u003eform of reality, the \u0026quot;holy people,\u0026quot; the \u0026quot;chosen people,\u0026quot; _Jewish_\u003cbr /\u003ereality itself. The phenomenon is of the first order of importance: the\u003cbr /\u003esmall insurrectionary movement which took the name of Jesus of Nazareth\u003cbr /\u003eis simply the Jewish instinct _redivivus_–in other words, it is the\u003cbr /\u003epriestly instinct come to such a pass that it can no longer endure the\u003cbr /\u003epriest as a fact; it is the discovery of a state of existence even more\u003cbr /\u003efantastic than any before it, of a vision of life even more _unreal_\u003cbr /\u003ethan that necessary to an ecclesiastical organization. Christianity\u003cbr /\u003eactually _denies_ the church….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI am unable to determine what was the target of the insurrection said to\u003cbr /\u003ehave been led (whether rightly or _wrongly_) by Jesus, if it was not the\u003cbr /\u003eJewish church–\u0026quot;church\u0026quot; being here used in exactly the same sense that\u003cbr /\u003ethe word has today. It was an insurrection against the \u0026quot;good and just,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eagainst the \u0026quot;prophets of Israel,\u0026quot; against the whole hierarchy of\u003cbr /\u003esociety–_not_ against corruption, but against caste, privilege, order,\u003cbr /\u003eformalism. It was _unbelief_ in \u0026quot;superior men,\u0026quot; a Nay flung at\u003cbr /\u003eeverything that priests and theologians stood for. But the hierarchy\u003cbr /\u003ethat was called into question, if only for an instant, by this movement\u003cbr /\u003ewas the structure of piles which, above everything, was necessary to the\u003cbr /\u003esafety of the Jewish people in the midst of the \u0026quot;waters\u0026quot;–it represented\u003cbr /\u003etheir _last_ possibility of survival; it was the final _residuum_ of\u003cbr /\u003etheir independent political existence; an attack upon it was an attack\u003cbr /\u003eupon the most profound national instinct, the most powerful national\u003cbr /\u003ewill to live, that has ever appeared on earth. This saintly anarchist,\u003cbr /\u003ewho aroused the people of the abyss, the outcasts and \u0026quot;sinners,\u0026quot; the\u003cbr /\u003eChandala of Judaism, to rise in revolt against the established order of\u003cbr /\u003ethings–and in language which, if the Gospels are to be credited, would\u003cbr /\u003eget him sent to Siberia today–this man was certainly a political\u003cbr /\u003ecriminal, at least in so far as it was possible to be one in so\u003cbr /\u003e_absurdly unpolitical_ a community. This is what brought him to the\u003cbr /\u003ecross: the proof thereof is to be found in the inscription that was put\u003cbr /\u003eupon the cross. He died for his _own_ sins–there is not the slightest\u003cbr /\u003eground for believing, no matter how often it is asserted, that he died\u003cbr /\u003efor the sins of others.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e28.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAs to whether he himself was conscious of this contradiction–whether,\u003cbr /\u003ein fact, this was the only contradiction he was cognizant of–that is\u003cbr /\u003equite another question. Here, for the first time, I touch upon the\u003cbr /\u003eproblem of the _psychology of the Saviour_.–I confess, to begin with,\u003cbr /\u003ethat there are very few books which offer me harder reading than the\u003cbr /\u003eGospels. My difficulties are quite different from those which enabled\u003cbr /\u003ethe learned curiosity of the German mind to achieve one of its most\u003cbr /\u003eunforgettable triumphs. It is a long while since I, like all other young\u003cbr /\u003escholars, enjoyed with all the sapient laboriousness of a fastidious\u003cbr /\u003ephilologist the work of the incomparable Strauss.[5] At that time I was\u003cbr /\u003etwenty years old: now I am too serious for that sort of thing. What do I\u003cbr /\u003ecare for the contradictions of \u0026quot;tradition\u0026quot;? How can any one call pious\u003cbr /\u003elegends \u0026quot;traditions\u0026quot;? The histories of saints present the most dubious\u003cbr /\u003evariety of literature in existence; to examine them by the scientific\u003cbr /\u003emethod, _in the entire absence of corroborative documents_, seems to me\u003cbr /\u003eto condemn the whole inquiry from the start–it is simply learned\u003cbr /\u003eidling….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[5] David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74), author of \u0026quot;Das Leben Jesu\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e(1835-6), a very famous work in its day. Nietzsche here refers to it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e29.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhat concerns _me_ is the psychological type of the Saviour. This type\u003cbr /\u003emight be depicted in the Gospels, in however mutilated a form and\u003cbr /\u003ehowever much overladen with extraneous characters–that is, in _spite_\u003cbr /\u003eof the Gospels; just as the figure of Francis of Assisi shows itself in\u003cbr /\u003ehis legends in spite of his legends. It is _not_ a question of mere\u003cbr /\u003etruthful evidence as to what he did, what he said and how he actually\u003cbr /\u003edied; the question is, whether his type is still conceivable, whether it\u003cbr /\u003ehas been handed down to us.–All the attempts that I know of to read the\u003cbr /\u003e_history_ of a \u0026quot;soul\u0026quot; in the Gospels seem to me to reveal only a\u003cbr /\u003elamentable psychological levity. M. Renan, that mountebank _in\u003cbr /\u003epsychologicus_, has contributed the two most _unseemly_ notions to this\u003cbr /\u003ebusiness of explaining the type of Jesus: the notion of the _genius_ and\u003cbr /\u003ethat of the _hero_ (\u0026quot;_h\u0026#233;ros_\u0026quot;). But if there is anything essentially\u003cbr /\u003eunevangelical, it is surely the concept of the hero. What the Gospels\u003cbr /\u003emake instinctive is precisely the reverse of all heroic struggle, of\u003cbr /\u003eall taste for conflict: the very incapacity for resistance is here\u003cbr /\u003econverted into something moral: (\u0026quot;resist not evil!\u0026quot;–the most profound\u003cbr /\u003esentence in the Gospels, perhaps the true key to them), to wit, the\u003cbr /\u003eblessedness of peace, of gentleness, the _inability_ to be an enemy.\u003cbr /\u003eWhat is the meaning of \u0026quot;glad tidings\u0026quot;?–The true life, the life eternal\u003cbr /\u003ehas been found–it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in _you_;\u003cbr /\u003eit is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions,\u003cbr /\u003efrom all keeping of distances. Every one is the child of God–Jesus\u003cbr /\u003eclaims nothing for himself alone–as the child of God each man is the\u003cbr /\u003eequal of every other man…. Imagine making Jesus a _hero_!–And what a\u003cbr /\u003etremendous misunderstanding appears in the word \u0026quot;genius\u0026quot;! Our whole\u003cbr /\u003econception of the \u0026quot;spiritual,\u0026quot; the whole conception of our civilization,\u003cbr /\u003ecould have had no meaning in the world that Jesus lived in. In the\u003cbr /\u003estrict sense of the physiologist, a quite different word ought to be\u003cbr /\u003eused here…. We all know that there is a morbid sensibility of the\u003cbr /\u003etactile nerves which causes those suffering from it to recoil from every\u003cbr /\u003etouch, and from every effort to grasp a solid object. Brought to its\u003cbr /\u003elogical conclusion, such a physiological _habitus_ becomes an\u003cbr /\u003einstinctive hatred of all reality, a flight into the \u0026quot;intangible,\u0026quot; into\u003cbr /\u003ethe \u0026quot;incomprehensible\u0026quot;; a distaste for all formulae, for all conceptions\u003cbr /\u003eof time and space, for everything established–customs, institutions,\u003cbr /\u003ethe church–; a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of\u003cbr /\u003ereality survives, a merely \u0026quot;inner\u0026quot; world, a \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; world, an \u0026quot;eternal\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eworld…. \u0026quot;The Kingdom of God is within _you_\u0026quot;….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e30.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_The instinctive hatred of reality_: the consequence of an extreme\u003cbr /\u003esusceptibility to pain and irritation–so great that merely to be\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;touched\u0026quot; becomes unendurable, for every sensation is too profound.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e_The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds\u003cbr /\u003eand distances in feeling_: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility\u003cbr /\u003eto pain and irritation–so great that it senses all resistance, all\u003cbr /\u003ecompulsion to resistance, as unbearable _anguish_ (–that is to say, as\u003cbr /\u003e_harmful_, as _prohibited_ by the instinct of self-preservation), and\u003cbr /\u003eregards blessedness (joy) as possible only when it is no longer\u003cbr /\u003enecessary to offer resistance to anybody or anything, however evil or\u003cbr /\u003edangerous–love, as the only, as the _ultimate_ possibility of life….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThese are the two _physiological realities_ upon and out of which the\u003cbr /\u003edoctrine of salvation has sprung. I call them a sublime\u003cbr /\u003esuper-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What\u003cbr /\u003estands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of\u003cbr /\u003eGreek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation\u003cbr /\u003eof paganism. Epicurus was a _typical d\u0026#233;cadent_: I was the first to\u003cbr /\u003erecognize him.–The fear of pain, even of infinitely slight pain–the\u003cbr /\u003eend of this _can_ be nothing save a _religion of love_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e31.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI have already given my answer to the problem. The prerequisite to it is\u003cbr /\u003ethe assumption that the type of the Saviour has reached us only in a\u003cbr /\u003egreatly distorted form. This distortion is very probable: there are many\u003cbr /\u003ereasons why a type of that sort should not be handed down in a pure\u003cbr /\u003eform, complete and free of additions. The milieu in which this strange\u003cbr /\u003efigure moved must have left marks upon him, and more must have been\u003cbr /\u003eimprinted by the history, the _destiny_, of the early Christian\u003cbr /\u003ecommunities; the latter indeed, must have embellished the type\u003cbr /\u003eretrospectively with characters which can be understood only as serving\u003cbr /\u003ethe purposes of war and of propaganda. That strange and sickly world\u003cbr /\u003einto which the Gospels lead us–a world apparently out of a Russian\u003cbr /\u003enovel, in which the scum of society, nervous maladies and \u0026quot;childish\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eidiocy keep a tryst–must, in any case, have _coarsened_ the type: the\u003cbr /\u003efirst disciples, in particular, must have been forced to translate an\u003cbr /\u003eexistence visible only in symbols and incomprehensibilities into their\u003cbr /\u003eown crudity, in order to understand it at all–in their sight the type\u003cbr /\u003ecould take on reality only after it had been recast in a familiar\u003cbr /\u003emould…. The prophet, the messiah, the future judge, the teacher of\u003cbr /\u003emorals, the worker of wonders, John the Baptist–all these merely\u003cbr /\u003epresented chances to misunderstand it…. Finally, let us not underrate\u003cbr /\u003ethe _proprium_ of all great, and especially all sectarian veneration: it\u003cbr /\u003etends to erase from the venerated objects all its original traits and\u003cbr /\u003eidiosyncrasies, often so painfully strange–_it does not even see\u003cbr /\u003ethem_. It is greatly to be regretted that no Dostoyevsky lived in the\u003cbr /\u003eneighbourhood of this most interesting _d\u0026#233;cadent_–I mean some one who\u003cbr /\u003ewould have felt the poignant charm of such a compound of the sublime,\u003cbr /\u003ethe morbid and the childish. In the last analysis, the type, as a type\u003cbr /\u003eof the _d\u0026#233;cadence_, may actually have been peculiarly complex and\u003cbr /\u003econtradictory: such a possibility is not to be lost sight of.\u003cbr /\u003eNevertheless, the probabilities seem to be against it, for in that case\u003cbr /\u003etradition would have been particularly accurate and objective, whereas\u003cbr /\u003ewe have reasons for assuming the contrary. Meanwhile, there is a\u003cbr /\u003econtradiction between the peaceful preacher of the mount, the sea-shore\u003cbr /\u003eand the fields, who appears like a new Buddha on a soil very unlike\u003cbr /\u003eIndia\u0026#39;s, and the aggressive fanatic, the mortal enemy of theologians and\u003cbr /\u003eecclesiastics, who stands glorified by Renan\u0026#39;s malice as \u0026quot;_le grand\u003cbr /\u003ema\u0026#238;tre en ironie_.\u0026quot; I myself haven\u0026#39;t any doubt that the greater part of\u003cbr /\u003ethis venom (and no less of _esprit_) got itself into the concept of the\u003cbr /\u003eMaster only as a result of the excited nature of Christian propaganda:\u003cbr /\u003ewe all know the unscrupulousness of sectarians when they set out to turn\u003cbr /\u003etheir leader into an _apologia_ for themselves. When the early\u003cbr /\u003eChristians had need of an adroit, contentious, pugnacious and\u003cbr /\u003emaliciously subtle theologian to tackle other theologians, they\u003cbr /\u003e_created_ a \u0026quot;god\u0026quot; that met that need, just as they put into his mouth\u003cbr /\u003ewithout hesitation certain ideas that were necessary to them but that\u003cbr /\u003ewere utterly at odds with the Gospels–\u0026quot;the second coming,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the last\u003cbr /\u003ejudgment,\u0026quot; all sorts of expectations and promises, current at the\u003cbr /\u003etime.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e32.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eI can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the\u003cbr /\u003efanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word _imp\u0026#233;rieux_, used\u003cbr /\u003eby Renan, is alone enough to _annul_ the type. What the \u0026quot;glad tidings\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003etell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of\u003cbr /\u003eheaven belongs to _children_; the faith that is voiced here is no more\u003cbr /\u003ean embattled faith–it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is\u003cbr /\u003ea sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit. The physiologists, at\u003cbr /\u003eall events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in\u003cbr /\u003ethe living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is\u003cbr /\u003enot furious, it does not denounce, it does not defend itself: it does\u003cbr /\u003enot come with \u0026quot;the sword\u0026quot;–it does not realize how it will one day set\u003cbr /\u003eman against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by\u003cbr /\u003erewards and promises, or by \u0026quot;scriptures\u0026quot;: it is itself, first and last,\u003cbr /\u003eits own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own \u0026quot;kingdom of\u003cbr /\u003eGod.\u0026quot; This faith does not formulate itself–it simply _lives_, and so\u003cbr /\u003eguards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment,\u003cbr /\u003eof educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain\u003cbr /\u003esort: in primitive Christianity one finds _only_ concepts of a\u003cbr /\u003eJudaeo-Semitic character (–that of eating and drinking at the last\u003cbr /\u003esupper belongs to this category–an idea which, like everything else\u003cbr /\u003eJewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not\u003cbr /\u003eto see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics[6]\u003cbr /\u003ean opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no\u003cbr /\u003ework is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at\u003cbr /\u003eall. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of\u003cbr /\u003eSankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of\u003cbr /\u003eLao-tse[8]–and in neither case would it have made any difference to\u003cbr /\u003ehim.–With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call\u003cbr /\u003eJesus a \u0026quot;free spirit\u0026quot;[9]–he cares nothing for what is established: the\u003cbr /\u003eword _killeth_,[10] whatever is established _killeth_. The idea of\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;life\u0026quot; as an _experience_, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to\u003cbr /\u003ehis mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He\u003cbr /\u003espeaks only of inner things: \u0026quot;life\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;truth\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;light\u0026quot; is his word\u003cbr /\u003efor the innermost–in his sight everything else, the whole of reality,\u003cbr /\u003eall nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as\u003cbr /\u003eallegory.–Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by\u003cbr /\u003ethe temptations lying in Christian, or rather _ecclesiastical_\u003cbr /\u003eprejudices: such a symbolism _par excellence_ stands outside all\u003cbr /\u003ereligion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all\u003cbr /\u003eworldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all\u003cbr /\u003ebooks, all art–his \u0026quot;wisdom\u0026quot; is precisely a _pure ignorance_[11] of all\u003cbr /\u003esuch things. He has never heard of _culture_; he doesn\u0026#39;t have to make\u003cbr /\u003ewar on it–he doesn\u0026#39;t even deny it…. The same thing may be said of the\u003cbr /\u003e_state_, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war–he has\u003cbr /\u003eno ground for denying \u0026quot;the world,\u0026quot; for he knows nothing of the\u003cbr /\u003eecclesiastical concept of \u0026quot;the world\u0026quot;…. _Denial_ is precisely the\u003cbr /\u003ething that is impossible to him.–In the same way he lacks argumentative\u003cbr /\u003ecapacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a \u0026quot;truth,\u0026quot; may be\u003cbr /\u003eestablished by proofs (–_his_ proofs are inner \u0026quot;lights,\u0026quot; subjective\u003cbr /\u003esensations of happiness and self-approval, simple \u0026quot;proofs of power\u0026quot;–).\u003cbr /\u003eSuch a doctrine _cannot_ contradict: it doesn\u0026#39;t know that other\u003cbr /\u003edoctrines exist, or _can_ exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining\u003cbr /\u003eanything opposed to it…. If anything of the sort is ever encountered,\u003cbr /\u003eit laments the \u0026quot;blindness\u0026quot; with sincere sympathy–for it alone has\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;light\u0026quot;–but it does not offer objections….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[6] The word _Semiotik_ is in the text, but it is probable that\u003cbr /\u003e_Semantik_ is what Nietzsche had in mind.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[7] One of the six great systems of Hindu philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[8] The reputed founder of Taoism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[9] Nietzsche\u0026#39;s name for one accepting his own philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[10] That is, the strict letter of the law–the chief target of Jesus\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003eearly preaching.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[11] A reference to the \u0026quot;pure ignorance\u0026quot; (_reine Thorheit_) of Parsifal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e33.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn the whole psychology of the \u0026quot;Gospels\u0026quot; the concepts of guilt and\u003cbr /\u003epunishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. \u0026quot;Sin,\u0026quot; which means\u003cbr /\u003eanything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished–_this\u003cbr /\u003eis precisely the \u0026quot;glad tidings.\u0026quot;_ Eternal bliss is not merely promised,\u003cbr /\u003enor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the _only_\u003cbr /\u003ereality–what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe _results_ of such a point of view project themselves into a new _way\u003cbr /\u003eof life_, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a \u0026quot;belief\u0026quot; that\u003cbr /\u003emarks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of\u003cbr /\u003eaction; he acts _differently_. He offers no resistance, either by word\u003cbr /\u003eor in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction\u003cbr /\u003ebetween strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (\u0026quot;neighbour,\u0026quot; of\u003cbr /\u003ecourse, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he\u003cbr /\u003edespises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds\u003cbr /\u003etheir mandates (\u0026quot;Swear not at all\u0026quot;).[12] He never under any\u003cbr /\u003ecircumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her\u003cbr /\u003einfidelity.–And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises\u003cbr /\u003efrom one instinct.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[12] Matthew v, 34.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of\u003cbr /\u003elife–and so was his death…. He no longer needed any formula or ritual\u003cbr /\u003ein his relations with God–not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of\u003cbr /\u003ethe Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he _knew_ that it was\u003cbr /\u003eonly by a _way_ of life that one could feel one\u0026#39;s self \u0026quot;divine,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;blessed,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;evangelical,\u0026quot; a \u0026quot;child of God.\u0026quot; _Not_ by \u0026quot;repentance,\u0026quot; _not_\u003cbr /\u003eby \u0026quot;prayer and forgiveness\u0026quot; is the way to God: _only the Gospel way_\u003cbr /\u003eleads to God–it is _itself_ \u0026quot;God!\u0026quot;–What the Gospels _abolished_ was\u003cbr /\u003ethe Judaism in the concepts of \u0026quot;sin,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;forgiveness of sin,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;faith,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;salvation through faith\u0026quot;–the whole _ecclesiastical_ dogma of the Jews\u003cbr /\u003ewas denied by the \u0026quot;glad tidings.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to _live_ so that he\u003cbr /\u003ewill feel that he is \u0026quot;in heaven\u0026quot; and is \u0026quot;immortal,\u0026quot; despite many reasons\u003cbr /\u003efor feeling that he is _not_ \u0026quot;in heaven\u0026quot;: this is the only psychological\u003cbr /\u003ereality in \u0026quot;salvation.\u0026quot;–A new way of life, _not_ a new faith….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e34.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIf I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this:\u003cbr /\u003ethat he regarded only _subjective_ realities as realities, as\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;truths\u0026quot;–that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal,\u003cbr /\u003espatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The\u003cbr /\u003econcept of \u0026quot;the Son of God\u0026quot; does not connote a concrete person in\u003cbr /\u003ehistory, an isolated and definite individual, but an \u0026quot;eternal\u0026quot; fact, a\u003cbr /\u003epsychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing\u003cbr /\u003eis true, and in the highest sense, of the _God_ of this typical\u003cbr /\u003esymbolist, of the \u0026quot;kingdom of God,\u0026quot; and of the \u0026quot;sonship of God.\u0026quot; Nothing\u003cbr /\u003ecould be more un-Christian than the _crude ecclesiastical_ notions of\u003cbr /\u003eGod as a _person_, of a \u0026quot;kingdom of God\u0026quot; that is to come, of a \u0026quot;kingdom\u003cbr /\u003eof heaven\u0026quot; beyond, and of a \u0026quot;son of God\u0026quot; as the _second person_ of the\u003cbr /\u003eTrinity. All this–if I may be forgiven the phrase–is like thrusting\u003cbr /\u003eone\u0026#39;s fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect\u003cbr /\u003efor symbols amounting to _world-historical cynicism_…. But it is\u003cbr /\u003enevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols \u0026quot;Father\u0026quot; and\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Son\u0026quot;–not, of course, to every one–: the word \u0026quot;Son\u0026quot; expresses\u003cbr /\u003e_entrance_ into the feeling that there is a general transformation of\u003cbr /\u003eall things (beatitude), and \u0026quot;Father\u0026quot; expresses _that feeling\u003cbr /\u003eitself_–the sensation of eternity and of perfection.–I am ashamed to\u003cbr /\u003eremind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set\u003cbr /\u003ean Amphitryon story[13] at the threshold of the Christian \u0026quot;faith\u0026quot;? And a\u003cbr /\u003edogma of \u0026quot;immaculate conception\u0026quot; for good measure?… _And thereby it\u003cbr /\u003ehas robbed conception of its immaculateness_–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[13] Amphitryon was the son of Alcaeus, King of Tiryns.\u003cbr /\u003eHis wife was Alcmene. During his absence she was visited by Zeus, and\u003cbr /\u003ebore Heracles.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026quot;kingdom of heaven\u0026quot; is a state of the heart–not something to come\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;beyond the world\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;after death.\u0026quot; The whole idea of natural death is\u003cbr /\u003e_absent_ from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is\u003cbr /\u003eabsent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world,\u003cbr /\u003euseful only as a symbol. The \u0026quot;hour of death\u0026quot; is _not_ a Christian\u003cbr /\u003eidea–\u0026quot;hours,\u0026quot; time, the physical life and its crises have no existence\u003cbr /\u003efor the bearer of \u0026quot;glad tidings.\u0026quot;… The \u0026quot;kingdom of God\u0026quot; is not\u003cbr /\u003esomething that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after\u003cbr /\u003etomorrow, it is not going to come at a \u0026quot;millennium\u0026quot;–it is an experience\u003cbr /\u003eof the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e35.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis \u0026quot;bearer of glad tidings\u0026quot; died as he lived and _taught_–_not_ to\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;save mankind,\u0026quot; but to show mankind how to live. It was a _way of life_\u003cbr /\u003ethat he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the\u003cbr /\u003eofficers, before his accusers–his demeanour on the _cross_. He does not\u003cbr /\u003eresist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off\u003cbr /\u003ethe most extreme penalty–more, _he invites it_…. And he prays,\u003cbr /\u003esuffers and loves _with_ those, _in_ those, who do him evil…. _Not_ to\u003cbr /\u003edefend one\u0026#39;s self, _not_ to show anger, _not_ to lay blames…. On the\u003cbr /\u003econtrary, to submit even to the Evil One–to _love_ him….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e36.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–We free spirits–we are the first to have the necessary prerequisite\u003cbr /\u003eto understanding what nineteen centuries have misunderstood–that\u003cbr /\u003einstinct and passion for integrity which makes war upon the \u0026quot;holy lie\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eeven more than upon all other lies…. Mankind was unspeakably far from\u003cbr /\u003eour benevolent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the\u003cbr /\u003espirit which alone makes possible the solution of such strange and\u003cbr /\u003esubtle things: what men always sought, with shameless egoism, was their\u003cbr /\u003e_own_ advantage therein; they created the _church_ out of denial of the\u003cbr /\u003eGospels….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhoever sought for signs of an ironical divinity\u0026#39;s hand in the great\u003cbr /\u003edrama of existence would find no small indication thereof in the\u003cbr /\u003e_stupendous question-mark_ that is called Christianity. That mankind\u003cbr /\u003eshould be on its knees before the very antithesis of what was the\u003cbr /\u003eorigin, the meaning and the _law_ of the Gospels–that in the concept of\u003cbr /\u003ethe \u0026quot;church\u0026quot; the very things should be pronounced holy that the \u0026quot;bearer\u003cbr /\u003eof glad tidings\u0026quot; regards as _beneath_ him and _behind_ him–it would be\u003cbr /\u003eimpossible to surpass this as a grand example of _world-historical\u003cbr /\u003eirony_–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e37.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–Our age is proud of its historical sense: how, then, could it delude\u003cbr /\u003eitself into believing that the _crude fable of the wonder-worker and\u003cbr /\u003eSaviour_ constituted the beginnings of Christianity–and that everything\u003cbr /\u003espiritual and symbolical in it only came later? Quite to the contrary,\u003cbr /\u003ethe whole history of Christianity–from the death on the cross\u003cbr /\u003eonward–is the history of a progressively clumsier misunderstanding of\u003cbr /\u003ean _original_ symbolism. With every extension of Christianity among\u003cbr /\u003elarger and ruder masses, even less capable of grasping the principles\u003cbr /\u003ethat gave birth to it, the need arose to make it more and more _vulgar_\u003cbr /\u003eand _barbarous_–it absorbed the teachings and rites of all the\u003cbr /\u003e_subterranean_ cults of the _imperium Romanum_, and the absurdities\u003cbr /\u003eengendered by all sorts of sickly reasoning. It was the fate of\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity that its faith had to become as sickly, as low and as\u003cbr /\u003evulgar as the needs were sickly, low and vulgar to which it had to\u003cbr /\u003eadminister. A _sickly barbarism_ finally lifts itself to power as the\u003cbr /\u003echurch–the church, that incarnation of deadly hostility to all honesty,\u003cbr /\u003eto all loftiness of soul, to all discipline of the spirit, to all\u003cbr /\u003espontaneous and kindly humanity.–_Christian_ values–_noble_ values: it\u003cbr /\u003eis only we, we _free_ spirits, who have re-established this greatest of\u003cbr /\u003eall antitheses in values!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e38.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–I cannot, at this place, avoid a sigh. There are days when I am\u003cbr /\u003evisited by a feeling blacker than the blackest melancholy–_contempt of\u003cbr /\u003eman_. Let me leave no doubt as to _what_ I despise, _whom_ I despise:\u003cbr /\u003eit is the man of today, the man with whom I am unhappily\u003cbr /\u003econtemporaneous. The man of today–I am suffocated by his foul\u003cbr /\u003ebreath!… Toward the past, like all who understand, I am full of\u003cbr /\u003etolerance, which is to say, _generous_ self-control: with gloomy caution\u003cbr /\u003eI pass through whole millenniums of this madhouse of a world, call it\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Christianity,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;Christian faith\u0026quot; or the \u0026quot;Christian church,\u0026quot; as you\u003cbr /\u003ewill–I take care not to hold mankind responsible for its lunacies. But\u003cbr /\u003emy feeling changes and breaks out irresistibly the moment I enter modern\u003cbr /\u003etimes, _our_ times. Our age _knows better_…. What was formerly merely\u003cbr /\u003esickly now becomes indecent–it is indecent to be a Christian today.\u003cbr /\u003e_And here my disgust begins._–I look about me: not a word survives of\u003cbr /\u003ewhat was once called \u0026quot;truth\u0026quot;; we can no longer bear to hear a priest\u003cbr /\u003epronounce the word. Even a man who makes the most modest pretensions to\u003cbr /\u003eintegrity _must_ know that a theologian, a priest, a pope of today not\u003cbr /\u003eonly errs when he speaks, but actually _lies_–and that he no longer\u003cbr /\u003eescapes blame for his lie through \u0026quot;innocence\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;ignorance.\u0026quot; The priest\u003cbr /\u003eknows, as every one knows, that there is no longer any \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot; or any\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;sinner,\u0026quot; or any \u0026quot;Saviour\u0026quot;–that \u0026quot;free will\u0026quot; and the \u0026quot;moral order of the\u003cbr /\u003eworld\u0026quot; are lies–: serious reflection, the profound self-conquest of the\u003cbr /\u003espirit, _allow_ no man to pretend that he does _not_ know it…. _All_\u003cbr /\u003ethe ideas of the church are now recognized for what they are–as the\u003cbr /\u003eworst counterfeits in existence, invented to debase nature and all\u003cbr /\u003enatural values; the priest himself is seen as he actually is–as the\u003cbr /\u003emost dangerous form of parasite, as the venomous spider of creation….\u003cbr /\u003eWe know, our _conscience_ now knows–just _what_ the real value of all\u003cbr /\u003ethose sinister inventions of priest and church has been and _what ends\u003cbr /\u003ethey have served_, with their debasement of humanity to a state of\u003cbr /\u003eself-pollution, the very sight of which excites loathing,–the concepts\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;the other world,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the last judgment,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the immortality of the soul,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003ethe \u0026quot;soul\u0026quot; itself: they are all merely so many instruments of torture,\u003cbr /\u003esystems of cruelty, whereby the priest becomes master and remains\u003cbr /\u003emaster…. Every one knows this, _but nevertheless things remain as\u003cbr /\u003ebefore_. What has become of the last trace of decent feeling, of\u003cbr /\u003eself-respect, when our statesmen, otherwise an unconventional class of\u003cbr /\u003emen and thoroughly anti-Christian in their acts, now call themselves\u003cbr /\u003eChristians and go to the communion-table?… A prince at the head of his\u003cbr /\u003earmies, magnificent as the expression of the egoism and arrogance of his\u003cbr /\u003epeople–and yet acknowledging, _without_ any shame, that he is a\u003cbr /\u003eChristian!… Whom, then, does Christianity deny? _what_ does it call\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;the world\u0026quot;? To be a _soldier_, to be a judge, to be a patriot; to\u003cbr /\u003edefend one\u0026#39;s self; to be careful of one\u0026#39;s honour; to desire one\u0026#39;s own\u003cbr /\u003eadvantage; to be _proud_ … every act of everyday, every instinct,\u003cbr /\u003eevery valuation that shows itself in a _deed_, is now anti-Christian:\u003cbr /\u003ewhat a _monster of falsehood_ the modern man must be to call himself\u003cbr /\u003enevertheless, and _without_ shame, a Christian!–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e39.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–I shall go back a bit, and tell you the _authentic_ history of\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity.–The very word \u0026quot;Christianity\u0026quot; is a misunderstanding–at\u003cbr /\u003ebottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Gospels\u0026quot; _died_ on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called\u003cbr /\u003ethe \u0026quot;Gospels\u0026quot; was the very reverse of what _he_ had lived: \u0026quot;bad\u003cbr /\u003etidings,\u0026quot; a _Dysangelium_.[14] It is an error amounting to\u003cbr /\u003enonsensicality to see in \u0026quot;faith,\u0026quot; and particularly in faith in salvation\u003cbr /\u003ethrough Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the\u003cbr /\u003eChristian _way of life_, the life _lived_ by him who died on the cross,\u003cbr /\u003eis Christian…. To this day _such_ a life is still possible, and for\u003cbr /\u003e_certain_ men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will\u003cbr /\u003eremain possible in all ages…. _Not_ faith, but acts; above all, an\u003cbr /\u003e_avoidance_ of acts, a different _state of being_…. States of\u003cbr /\u003econsciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything\u003cbr /\u003eas true–as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is\u003cbr /\u003eperfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts:\u003cbr /\u003estrictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false.\u003cbr /\u003eTo reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance\u003cbr /\u003eof truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the\u003cbr /\u003enegation of Christianity. _In fact, there are no Christians._ The\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Christian\u0026quot;–he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian–is\u003cbr /\u003esimply a psychological self-delusion. Closely examined, it appears\u003cbr /\u003ethat, _despite_ all his \u0026quot;faith,\u0026quot; he has been ruled _only_ by his\u003cbr /\u003einstincts–and _what instincts_!–In all ages–for example, in the case\u003cbr /\u003eof Luther–\u0026quot;faith\u0026quot; has been no more than a cloak, a pretense, a _curtain_\u003cbr /\u003ebehind which the instincts have played their game–a shrewd _blindness_\u003cbr /\u003eto the domination of _certain_ of the instincts…. I have already\u003cbr /\u003ecalled \u0026quot;faith\u0026quot; the specially Christian form of _shrewdness_–people\u003cbr /\u003ealways _talk_ of their \u0026quot;faith\u0026quot; and _act_ according to their\u003cbr /\u003einstincts…. In the world of ideas of the Christian there is nothing\u003cbr /\u003ethat so much as touches reality: on the contrary, one recognizes\u003cbr /\u003ean instinctive _hatred_ of reality as the motive power, the only motive\u003cbr /\u003epower at the bottom of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That even\u003cbr /\u003ehere, in _psychologicis_, there is a radical error, which is to say one\u003cbr /\u003econditioning fundamentals, which is to say, one in _substance_. Take\u003cbr /\u003eaway one idea and put a genuine reality in its place–and the whole of\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity crumbles to nothingness!–Viewed calmly, this strangest of\u003cbr /\u003eall phenomena, a religion not only depending on errors, but inventive\u003cbr /\u003eand ingenious _only_ in devising injurious errors, poisonous to life\u003cbr /\u003eand to the heart–this remains a _spectacle for the gods_–for those\u003cbr /\u003egods who are also philosophers, and whom I have encountered, for\u003cbr /\u003eexample, in the celebrated dialogues at Naxos. At the moment when their\u003cbr /\u003e_disgust_ leaves them (–and us!) they will be thankful for the\u003cbr /\u003espectacle afforded by the Christians: perhaps because of _this_ curious\u003cbr /\u003eexhibition alone the wretched little planet called the earth deserves a\u003cbr /\u003eglance from omnipotence, a show of divine interest…. Therefore, let us\u003cbr /\u003enot underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false _to the point of\u003cbr /\u003einnocence_, is far above the ape–in its application to the Christians a\u003cbr /\u003ewell-known theory of descent becomes a mere piece of politeness….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[14] So in the text. One of Nietzsche\u0026#39;s numerous coinages, obviously\u003cbr /\u003esuggested by _Evangelium_, the German for _gospel_.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e40.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–The fate of the Gospels was decided by death–it hung on the \u0026quot;cross.\u0026quot;…\u003cbr /\u003eIt was only death, that unexpected and shameful death; it was only\u003cbr /\u003ethe cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille only–it was only\u003cbr /\u003ethis appalling paradox which brought the disciples face to face with the\u003cbr /\u003ereal riddle: \u0026quot;_Who was it? what was it_?\u0026quot;–The feeling of dismay, of\u003cbr /\u003eprofound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might\u003cbr /\u003einvolve a _refutation_ of their cause; the terrible question, \u0026quot;Why just\u003cbr /\u003ein this way?\u0026quot;–this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here\u003cbr /\u003eeverything _must_ be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a\u003cbr /\u003emeaning, a reason, the highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple\u003cbr /\u003eexcludes all chance. Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: \u0026quot;_Who_ put\u003cbr /\u003ehim to death? who was his natural enemy?\u0026quot;–this question flashed like a\u003cbr /\u003elightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that\u003cbr /\u003emoment, one found one\u0026#39;s self in revolt _against_ the established order,\u003cbr /\u003eand began to understand Jesus as _in revolt against the established\u003cbr /\u003eorder_. Until then this militant, this nay-saying, nay-doing element in\u003cbr /\u003ehis character had been lacking; what is more, he had appeared to present\u003cbr /\u003eits opposite. Obviously, the little community had _not_ understood what\u003cbr /\u003ewas precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by\u003cbr /\u003ethis way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of\u003cbr /\u003e_ressentiment_–a plain indication of how little he was understood at\u003cbr /\u003eall! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by his death, in itself,\u003cbr /\u003ewas to offer the strongest possible proof, or _example_, of his\u003cbr /\u003eteachings in the most public manner…. But his disciples were very far\u003cbr /\u003efrom _forgiving_ his death–though to have done so would have accorded\u003cbr /\u003ewith the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared\u003cbr /\u003eto _offer_ themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a\u003cbr /\u003esimilar death…. On the contrary, it was precisely the most\u003cbr /\u003eunevangelical of feelings, _revenge_, that now possessed them. It seemed\u003cbr /\u003eimpossible that the cause should perish with his death: \u0026quot;recompense\u0026quot; and\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;judgment\u0026quot; became necessary (–yet what could be less evangelical than\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;recompense,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;punishment,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;sitting in judgment\u0026quot;!). Once more the\u003cbr /\u003epopular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground;\u003cbr /\u003eattention was rivetted upon an historical moment: the \u0026quot;kingdom of God\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eis to come, with judgment upon his enemies…. But in all this there was\u003cbr /\u003ea wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the \u0026quot;kingdom of God\u0026quot; as a last\u003cbr /\u003eact, as a mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation,\u003cbr /\u003ethe fulfilment, the _realization_ of this \u0026quot;kingdom of God.\u0026quot; It was only\u003cbr /\u003enow that all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees\u003cbr /\u003eand theologians began to appear in the character of the Master–he was\u003cbr /\u003ethereby _turned_ into a Pharisee and theologian himself! On the other\u003cbr /\u003ehand, the savage veneration of these completely unbalanced souls could\u003cbr /\u003eno longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the equal\u003cbr /\u003eright of all men to be children of God: their revenge took the form of\u003cbr /\u003e_elevating_ Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him\u003cbr /\u003efrom themselves: just as, in earlier times, the Jews, to revenge\u003cbr /\u003ethemselves upon their enemies, separated themselves from their God, and\u003cbr /\u003eplaced him on a great height. The One God and the Only Son of God: both\u003cbr /\u003ewere products of _ressentiment_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e41.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–And from that time onward an absurd problem offered itself: \u0026quot;how\u003cbr /\u003e_could_ God allow it!\u0026quot; To which the deranged reason of the little\u003cbr /\u003ecommunity formulated an answer that was terrifying in its absurdity: God\u003cbr /\u003egave his son as a _sacrifice_ for the forgiveness of sins. At once there\u003cbr /\u003ewas an end of the gospels! Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious\u003cbr /\u003eand barbarous form: sacrifice of the _innocent_ for the sins of the\u003cbr /\u003eguilty! What appalling paganism!–Jesus himself had done away with the\u003cbr /\u003every concept of \u0026quot;guilt,\u0026quot; he denied that there was any gulf fixed between\u003cbr /\u003eGod and man; he _lived_ this unity between God and man, and that was\u003cbr /\u003eprecisely _his_ \u0026quot;glad tidings\u0026quot;…. And _not_ as a mere privilege!–From\u003cbr /\u003ethis time forward the type of the Saviour was corrupted, bit by bit, by\u003cbr /\u003ethe doctrine of judgment and of the second coming, the doctrine of death\u003cbr /\u003eas a sacrifice, the doctrine of the _resurrection_, by means of which\u003cbr /\u003ethe entire concept of \u0026quot;blessedness,\u0026quot; the whole and only reality of the\u003cbr /\u003egospels, is juggled away–in favour of a state of existence _after_\u003cbr /\u003edeath!… St. Paul, with that rabbinical impudence which shows itself in\u003cbr /\u003eall his doings, gave a logical quality to that conception, that\u003cbr /\u003e_indecent_ conception, in this way: \u0026quot;_If_ Christ did not rise from the\u003cbr /\u003edead, then all our faith is in vain!\u0026quot;–And at once there sprang from the\u003cbr /\u003eGospels the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the\u003cbr /\u003e_shameless_ doctrine of personal immortality…. Paul even preached it\u003cbr /\u003eas a _reward_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e42.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne now begins to see just _what_ it was that came to an end with the\u003cbr /\u003edeath on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a\u003cbr /\u003eBuddhistic peace movement, and so establish _happiness on earth_–real,\u003cbr /\u003e_not_ merely promised. For this remains–as I have already pointed\u003cbr /\u003eout–the essential difference between the two religions of _d\u0026#233;cadence_:\u003cbr /\u003eBuddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfils; Christianity promises\u003cbr /\u003eeverything, but _fulfils nothing_.–Hard upon the heels of the \u0026quot;glad\u003cbr /\u003etidings\u0026quot; came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated\u003cbr /\u003ethe very opposite of the \u0026quot;bearer of glad tidings\u0026quot;; he represents the\u003cbr /\u003egenius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred.\u003cbr /\u003e_What_, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above\u003cbr /\u003eall, the Saviour: he nailed him to _his own_ cross. The life, the\u003cbr /\u003eexample, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of\u003cbr /\u003ethe whole gospels–nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter\u003cbr /\u003ein hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely _not_ reality; surely _not_\u003cbr /\u003ehistorical truth!… Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew\u003cbr /\u003eperpetrated the same old master crime against history–he simply struck\u003cbr /\u003eout the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and\u003cbr /\u003e_invented his own history of Christian beginnings_. Going further, he\u003cbr /\u003etreated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it\u003cbr /\u003ebecame a mere prologue to _his_ achievement: all the prophets, it now\u003cbr /\u003eappeared, had referred to _his_ \u0026quot;Saviour.\u0026quot;… Later on the church even\u003cbr /\u003efalsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity…. The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of\u003cbr /\u003elife, his death, the meaning of his death, even the consequences of his\u003cbr /\u003edeath–nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even remote\u003cbr /\u003econtact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that\u003cbr /\u003ewhole life to a place _behind_ this existence–in the _lie_ of the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;risen\u0026quot; Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the\u003cbr /\u003eSaviour–what he needed was the death on the cross, _and_ something\u003cbr /\u003emore. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at\u003cbr /\u003ethe centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an\u003cbr /\u003ehallucination into a _proof_ of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even\u003cbr /\u003eto believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination\u003cbr /\u003ehimself–this would be a genuine _niaiserie_ in a psychologist. Paul\u003cbr /\u003ewilled the end; _therefore_ he also willed the means…. What he himself\u003cbr /\u003edidn\u0026#39;t believe was swallowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he\u003cbr /\u003espread _his_ teaching.–What _he_ wanted was power; in Paul the priest\u003cbr /\u003eonce more reached out for power–he had use only for such concepts,\u003cbr /\u003eteachings and symbols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the\u003cbr /\u003emasses and organizing mobs. _What_ was the only part of Christianity\u003cbr /\u003ethat Mohammed borrowed later on? Paul\u0026#39;s invention, his device for\u003cbr /\u003eestablishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the\u003cbr /\u003eimmortality of the soul–_that is to say, the doctrine of\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;judgment\u0026quot;_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e43.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the centre of gravity of life is placed, _not_ in life itself, but\u003cbr /\u003ein \u0026quot;the beyond\u0026quot;–in _nothingness_–then one has taken away its centre of\u003cbr /\u003egravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all\u003cbr /\u003ereason, all natural instinct–henceforth, everything in the instincts\u003cbr /\u003ethat is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is\u003cbr /\u003ea cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning:\u003cbr /\u003e_this_ is now the \u0026quot;meaning\u0026quot; of life…. Why be public-spirited? Why take\u003cbr /\u003eany pride in descent and forefathers? Why labour together, trust one\u003cbr /\u003eanother, or concern one\u0026#39;s self about the common welfare, and try to\u003cbr /\u003eserve it?… Merely so many \u0026quot;temptations,\u0026quot; so many strayings from the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;straight path.\u0026quot;–\u0026quot;_One_ thing only is necessary\u0026quot;…. That every man,\u003cbr /\u003ebecause he has an \u0026quot;immortal soul,\u0026quot; is as good as every other man; that\u003cbr /\u003ein an infinite universe of things the \u0026quot;salvation\u0026quot; of _every_ individual\u003cbr /\u003emay lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the\u003cbr /\u003ethree-fourths insane may assume that the laws of nature are constantly\u003cbr /\u003e_suspended_ in their behalf–it is impossible to lavish too much\u003cbr /\u003econtempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to\u003cbr /\u003einfinity, to _insolence_. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely\u003cbr /\u003e_this_ miserable flattery of personal vanity for its _triumph_–it was\u003cbr /\u003ethus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon\u003cbr /\u003eevil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side.\u003cbr /\u003eThe \u0026quot;salvation of the soul\u0026quot;–in plain English: \u0026quot;the world revolves\u003cbr /\u003earound _me_.\u0026quot;… The poisonous doctrine, \u0026quot;_equal_ rights for all,\u0026quot; has\u003cbr /\u003ebeen propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and\u003cbr /\u003ecrannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all\u003cbr /\u003efeelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to\u003cbr /\u003esay, upon the first _prerequisite_ to every step upward, to every\u003cbr /\u003edevelopment of civilization–out of the _ressentiment_ of the masses it\u003cbr /\u003ehas forged its chief weapons against _us_, against everything noble,\u003cbr /\u003ejoyous and high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth…. To\u003cbr /\u003eallow \u0026quot;immortality\u0026quot; to every Peter and Paul was the greatest, the most\u003cbr /\u003evicious outrage upon _noble_ humanity ever perpetrated.–_And_ let us\u003cbr /\u003enot underestimate the fatal influence that Christianity has had, even\u003cbr /\u003eupon politics! Nowadays no one has courage any more for special rights,\u003cbr /\u003efor the right of dominion, for feelings of honourable pride in himself\u003cbr /\u003eand his equals–for the _pathos of distance_…. Our politics is sick\u003cbr /\u003ewith this lack of courage!–The aristocratic attitude of mind has been\u003cbr /\u003eundermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if belief in the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;privileges of the majority\u0026quot; makes and _will continue to make_\u003cbr /\u003erevolutions–it is Christianity, let us not doubt, and _Christian_\u003cbr /\u003evaluations, which convert every revolution into a carnival of blood and\u003cbr /\u003ecrime! Christianity is a revolt of all creatures that creep on the\u003cbr /\u003eground against everything that is _lofty_: the gospel of the \u0026quot;lowly\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e_lowers_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e44.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–The gospels are invaluable as evidence of the corruption that was\u003cbr /\u003ealready persistent _within_ the primitive community. That which Paul,\u003cbr /\u003ewith the cynical logic of a rabbi, later developed to a conclusion was\u003cbr /\u003eat bottom merely a process of decay that had begun with the death of the\u003cbr /\u003eSaviour.–These gospels cannot be read too carefully; difficulties lurk\u003cbr /\u003ebehind every word. I confess–I hope it will not be held against\u003cbr /\u003eme–that it is precisely for this reason that they offer first-rate joy\u003cbr /\u003eto a psychologist–as the _opposite_ of all merely na\u0026#239;ve corruption, as\u003cbr /\u003erefinement _par excellence_, as an artistic triumph in psychological\u003cbr /\u003ecorruption. The gospels, in fact, stand alone. The Bible as a whole is\u003cbr /\u003enot to be compared to them. Here we are among Jews: this is the _first_\u003cbr /\u003ething to be borne in mind if we are not to lose the thread of the\u003cbr /\u003ematter. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;holiness\u0026quot; unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this\u003cbr /\u003eelevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an _art_–all\u003cbr /\u003ethis is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or\u003cbr /\u003eto any violation of nature. The thing responsible is _race_. The whole\u003cbr /\u003eof Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies,\u003cbr /\u003eand there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard\u003cbr /\u003epractice of Jewish technic, the business comes to the stage of mastery.\u003cbr /\u003eThe Christian, that _ultima ratio_ of lying, is the Jew all over\u003cbr /\u003eagain–he is _threefold_ the Jew…. The underlying will to make use\u003cbr /\u003eonly of such concepts, symbols and attitudes as fit into priestly\u003cbr /\u003epractice, the instinctive repudiation of every _other_ mode of thought,\u003cbr /\u003eand every other method of estimating values and utilities–this is not\u003cbr /\u003eonly tradition, it is _inheritance_: only as an inheritance is it able\u003cbr /\u003eto operate with the force of nature. The whole of mankind, even the best\u003cbr /\u003eminds of the best ages (with one exception, perhaps hardly human–),\u003cbr /\u003ehave permitted themselves to be deceived. The gospels have been read as\u003cbr /\u003ea _book of innocence_ … surely no small indication of the high skill\u003cbr /\u003ewith which the trick has been done.–Of course, if we could actually\u003cbr /\u003e_see_ these astounding bigots and bogus saints, even if only for an\u003cbr /\u003einstant, the farce would come to an end,–and it is precisely because\u003cbr /\u003e_I_ cannot read a word of theirs without seeing their attitudinizing\u003cbr /\u003ethat _I have made an end of them_…. I simply cannot endure the way\u003cbr /\u003ethey have of rolling up their eyes.–For the majority, happily enough,\u003cbr /\u003ebooks are mere _literature_.–Let us not be led astray: they say \u0026quot;judge\u003cbr /\u003enot,\u0026quot; and yet they condemn to hell whoever stands in their way. In\u003cbr /\u003eletting God sit in judgment they judge themselves; in glorifying God\u003cbr /\u003ethey glorify themselves; in _demanding_ that every one show the virtues\u003cbr /\u003ewhich they themselves happen to be capable of–still more, which they\u003cbr /\u003e_must_ have in order to remain on top–they assume the grand air of men\u003cbr /\u003estruggling for virtue, of men engaging in a war that virtue may prevail.\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves _for the good_\u0026quot; (–\u0026quot;the truth,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;the light,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the kingdom of God\u0026quot;): in point of fact, they simply do\u003cbr /\u003ewhat they cannot help doing. Forced, like hypocrites, to be sneaky, to\u003cbr /\u003ehide in corners, to slink along in the shadows, they convert their\u003cbr /\u003enecessity into a _duty_: it is on grounds of duty that they account for\u003cbr /\u003etheir lives of humility, and that humility becomes merely one more proof\u003cbr /\u003eof their piety…. Ah, that humble, chaste, charitable brand of fraud!\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Virtue itself shall bear witness for us.\u0026quot;… One may read the gospels\u003cbr /\u003eas books of _moral_ seduction: these petty folks fasten themselves to\u003cbr /\u003emorality–they know the uses of morality! Morality is the best of all\u003cbr /\u003edevices for leading mankind _by the nose_!–The fact is that the\u003cbr /\u003econscious conceit of the chosen here disguises itself as modesty: it is\u003cbr /\u003ein this way that _they_, the \u0026quot;community,\u0026quot; the \u0026quot;good and just,\u0026quot; range\u003cbr /\u003ethemselves, once and for always, on one side, the side of \u0026quot;the\u003cbr /\u003etruth\u0026quot;–and the rest of mankind, \u0026quot;the world,\u0026quot; on the other…. In _that_\u003cbr /\u003ewe observe the most fatal sort of megalomania that the earth has ever\u003cbr /\u003eseen: little abortions of bigots and liars began to claim exclusive\u003cbr /\u003erights in the concepts of \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the truth,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the light,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the spirit,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;love,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;wisdom\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;life,\u0026quot; as if these things were synonyms of\u003cbr /\u003ethemselves and thereby they sought to fence themselves off from the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;world\u0026quot;; little super-Jews, ripe for some sort of madhouse, turned\u003cbr /\u003evalues upside down in order to meet _their_ notions, just as if the\u003cbr /\u003eChristian were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even the _last\u003cbr /\u003ejudgment_ of all the rest…. The whole disaster was only made possible\u003cbr /\u003eby the fact that there already existed in the world a similar\u003cbr /\u003emegalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the _Jewish_: once a\u003cbr /\u003echasm began to yawn between Jews and Judaeo-Christians, the latter had\u003cbr /\u003eno choice but to employ the self-preservative measures that the Jewish\u003cbr /\u003einstinct had devised, even _against_ the Jews themselves, whereas the\u003cbr /\u003eJews had employed them only against non-Jews. The Christian is simply a\u003cbr /\u003eJew of the \u0026quot;reformed\u0026quot; confession.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e45.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–I offer a few examples of the sort of thing these petty people have\u003cbr /\u003egot into their heads–what they have _put into the mouth_ of the Master:\u003cbr /\u003ethe unalloyed creed of \u0026quot;beautiful souls.\u0026quot;–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart\u003cbr /\u003ethence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.\u003cbr /\u003eVerily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha\u003cbr /\u003ein the day of judgment, than for that city\u0026quot; (Mark\u0026#160;vi, 11)–How\u003cbr /\u003e_evangelical_!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;And whosoever shall offend one of _these_ little ones that believe in\u003cbr /\u003eme, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,\u003cbr /\u003eand he were cast into the sea\u0026quot; (Mark\u0026#160;ix, 42).–How _evangelical_!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for\u003cbr /\u003ethee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes\u003cbr /\u003eto be cast into hell fire; Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not\u003cbr /\u003equenched.\u0026quot; (Mark\u0026#160;ix, 47.[15])–It is not exactly the eye that is\u003cbr /\u003emeant….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[15] To which, without mentioning it, Nietzsche adds verse 48.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here,\u003cbr /\u003ewhich shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God\u003cbr /\u003ecome with power.\u0026quot; (Mark\u0026#160;ix, 1.)–Well _lied_, lion![16]…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[16] A paraphrase of Demetrius\u0026#39; \u0026quot;Well roar\u0026#39;d, Lion!\u0026quot; in act v, scene 1\u003cbr /\u003eof \u0026quot;A Midsummer Night\u0026#39;s Dream.\u0026quot; The lion, of course, is the familiar\u003cbr /\u003eChristian symbol for Mark.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his\u003cbr /\u003ecross, and follow me. _For_…\u0026quot; (_Note of a psychologist._ Christian\u003cbr /\u003emorality is refuted by its _fors_: its reasons are against it,–this\u003cbr /\u003emakes it Christian.) Mark viii, 34.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall\u003cbr /\u003ebe measured to you again.\u0026quot; (Matthew\u0026#160;vii, 1.[17])–What a notion of\u003cbr /\u003ejustice, of a \u0026quot;just\u0026quot; judge!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[17] Nietzsche also quotes part of verse 2.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even\u003cbr /\u003ethe publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye\u003cbr /\u003emore _than others_? do not even the publicans so?\u0026quot; (Matthew v,\u003cbr /\u003e46.[18])–Principle of \u0026quot;Christian love\u0026quot;: it insists upon being well\u003cbr /\u003e_paid_ in the end….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[18] The quotation also includes verse 47.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father\u003cbr /\u003eforgive your trespasses.\u0026quot; (Matthew\u0026#160;vi, 15.)–Very compromising for the\u003cbr /\u003esaid \u0026quot;father.\u0026quot;…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all\u003cbr /\u003ethese things shall be added unto you.\u0026quot; (Matthew\u0026#160;vi, 33.)–All these\u003cbr /\u003ethings: namely, food, clothing, all the necessities of life. An _error_,\u003cbr /\u003eto put it mildly…. A bit before this God appears as a tailor, at least\u003cbr /\u003ein certain cases….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward _is_\u003cbr /\u003egreat in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the\u003cbr /\u003eprophets.\u0026quot; (Luke\u0026#160;vi, 23.)–_Impudent_ rabble! It compares itself to the\u003cbr /\u003eprophets….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and _that_ the spirit of God\u003cbr /\u003edwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, _him shall God\u003cbr /\u003edestroy_; for the temple of God is holy, _which temple ye are_.\u0026quot; (Paul,\u003cbr /\u003e1\u0026#160;Corinthians\u0026#160;iii, 16.[19])–For that sort of thing one cannot have\u003cbr /\u003eenough contempt….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[19] And 17.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world\u003cbr /\u003eshall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e(Paul, 1\u0026#160;Corinthians\u0026#160;vi, 2.)–Unfortunately, not merely the speech of\u003cbr /\u003ea lunatic…. This _frightful impostor_ then proceeds: \u0026quot;Know ye not\u003cbr /\u003ethat we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this\u003cbr /\u003elife?\u0026quot;…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in\u003cbr /\u003ethe wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by\u003cbr /\u003ethe foolishness of preaching to save them that believe…. Not many wise\u003cbr /\u003emen after the flesh, not men mighty, not many noble _are called_: But\u003cbr /\u003eGod hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;\u003cbr /\u003eand God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things\u003cbr /\u003ewhich are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are\u003cbr /\u003edespised, hath God chosen, _yea_, and things which are not, to bring to\u003cbr /\u003enought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e(Paul, 1\u0026#160;Corinthians\u0026#160;i, 20ff.[20])–In order to _understand_ this\u003cbr /\u003epassage, a first-rate example of the psychology underlying every\u003cbr /\u003eChandala-morality, one should read the first part of my \u0026quot;Genealogy of\u003cbr /\u003eMorals\u0026quot;: there, for the first time, the antagonism between a _noble_\u003cbr /\u003emorality and a morality born of _ressentiment_ and impotent vengefulness\u003cbr /\u003eis exhibited. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[20] Verses 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e46.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–_What follows, then?_ That one had better put on gloves before reading\u003cbr /\u003ethe New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very\u003cbr /\u003eadvisable. One would as little choose \u0026quot;early Christians\u0026quot; for companions\u003cbr /\u003eas Polish Jews: not that one need seek out an objection to them….\u003cbr /\u003eNeither has a pleasant smell.–I have searched the New Testament in vain\u003cbr /\u003efor a single sympathetic touch; nothing is there that is free, kindly,\u003cbr /\u003eopen-hearted or upright. In it humanity does not even make the first\u003cbr /\u003estep upward–the instinct for _cleanliness_ is lacking…. Only _evil_\u003cbr /\u003einstincts are there, and there is not even the courage of these evil\u003cbr /\u003einstincts. It is all cowardice; it is all a shutting of the eyes, a\u003cbr /\u003eself-deception. Every other book becomes clean, once one has read the\u003cbr /\u003eNew Testament: for example, immediately after reading Paul I took up\u003cbr /\u003ewith delight that most charming and wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of\u003cbr /\u003ewhom one may say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote of C\u0026#230;sar Borgia to the\u003cbr /\u003eDuke of Parma: \u0026quot;_\u0026#232; tutto festo_\u0026quot;–immortally healthy, immortally\u003cbr /\u003echeerful and sound…. These petty bigots make a capital miscalculation.\u003cbr /\u003eThey attack, but everything they attack is thereby _distinguished_.\u003cbr /\u003eWhoever is attacked by an \u0026quot;early Christian\u0026quot; is surely _not_ befouled….\u003cbr /\u003eOn the contrary, it is an honour to have an \u0026quot;early Christian\u0026quot; as an\u003cbr /\u003eopponent. One cannot read the New Testament without acquired admiration\u003cbr /\u003efor whatever it abuses–not to speak of the \u0026quot;wisdom of this world,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003ewhich an impudent wind-bag tries to dispose of \u0026quot;by the foolishness of\u003cbr /\u003epreaching.\u0026quot;… Even the scribes and pharisees are benefitted by such\u003cbr /\u003eopposition: they must certainly have been worth something to have been\u003cbr /\u003ehated in such an indecent manner. Hypocrisy–as if this were a charge\u003cbr /\u003ethat the \u0026quot;early Christians\u0026quot; _dared_ to make!–After all, they were the\u003cbr /\u003e_privileged_, and that was enough: the hatred of the Chandala needed no\u003cbr /\u003eother excuse. The \u0026quot;early Christian\u0026quot;–and also, I fear, the \u0026quot;last\u003cbr /\u003eChristian,\u0026quot; _whom I may perhaps live to see_–is a rebel against all\u003cbr /\u003eprivilege by profound instinct–he lives and makes war for ever for\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;equal rights.\u0026quot;… Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. When a man\u003cbr /\u003eproposes to represent, in his own person, the \u0026quot;chosen of God\u0026quot;–or to be\u003cbr /\u003ea \u0026quot;temple of God,\u0026quot; or a \u0026quot;judge of the angels\u0026quot;–then every _other_\u003cbr /\u003ecriterion, whether based upon honesty, upon intellect, upon manliness\u003cbr /\u003eand pride, or upon beauty and freedom of the heart, becomes simply\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;worldly\u0026quot;–_evil in itself_…. Moral: every word that comes from the\u003cbr /\u003elips of an \u0026quot;early Christian\u0026quot; is a lie, and his every act is\u003cbr /\u003einstinctively dishonest–all his values, all his aims are noxious, but\u003cbr /\u003e_whoever_ he hates, _whatever_ he hates, has real _value_…. The\u003cbr /\u003eChristian, and particularly the Christian priest, is thus a _criterion\u003cbr /\u003eof values_.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a\u003cbr /\u003e_solitary_ figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard\u003cbr /\u003ea Jewish imbroglio _seriously_–that was quite beyond him. One Jew more\u003cbr /\u003eor less–what did it matter?… The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom\u003cbr /\u003ethe word \u0026quot;truth\u0026quot; was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament\u003cbr /\u003ewith the only saying _that has any value_–and that is at once its\u003cbr /\u003ecriticism and its _destruction_: \u0026quot;What is truth?…\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e47.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–The thing that sets us apart is not that we are unable to find God,\u003cbr /\u003eeither in history, or in nature, or behind nature–but that we regard\u003cbr /\u003ewhat has been honoured as God, not as \u0026quot;divine,\u0026quot; but as pitiable, as\u003cbr /\u003eabsurd, as injurious; not as a mere error, but as a _crime against\u003cbr /\u003elife_…. We deny that God is God…. If any one were to _show_ us this\u003cbr /\u003eChristian God, we\u0026#39;d be still less inclined to believe in him.–In a\u003cbr /\u003eformula: _deus, qualem Paulus creavit, dei negatio_.–Such a religion as\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which\u003cbr /\u003egoes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must\u003cbr /\u003ebe inevitably the deadly enemy of the \u0026quot;wisdom of this world,\u0026quot; which is\u003cbr /\u003eto say, of _science_–and it will give the name of good to whatever\u003cbr /\u003emeans serve to poison, calumniate and _cry down_ all intellectual\u003cbr /\u003ediscipline, all lucidity and strictness in matters of intellectual\u003cbr /\u003econscience, and all noble coolness and freedom of the mind. \u0026quot;Faith,\u0026quot; as\u003cbr /\u003ean imperative, vetoes science–_in praxi_, lying at any price…. Paul\u003cbr /\u003e_well knew_ that lying–that \u0026quot;faith\u0026quot;–was necessary; later on the church\u003cbr /\u003eborrowed the fact from Paul.–The God that Paul invented for himself, a\u003cbr /\u003eGod who \u0026quot;reduced to absurdity\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the wisdom of this world\u0026quot; (especially\u003cbr /\u003ethe two great enemies of superstition, philology and medicine), is in\u003cbr /\u003etruth only an indication of Paul\u0026#39;s resolute _determination_ to\u003cbr /\u003eaccomplish that very thing himself: to give one\u0026#39;s own will the name of\u003cbr /\u003eGod, _thora_–that is essentially Jewish. Paul _wants_ to dispose of the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;wisdom of this world\u0026quot;: his enemies are the _good_ philologians and\u003cbr /\u003ephysicians of the Alexandrine school–on them he makes his war. As a\u003cbr /\u003ematter of fact no man can be a _philologian_ or a physician without\u003cbr /\u003ebeing also _Antichrist_. That is to say, as a philologian a man sees\u003cbr /\u003e_behind_ the \u0026quot;holy books,\u0026quot; and as a physician he sees _behind_ the\u003cbr /\u003ephysiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The physician says\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;incurable\u0026quot;; the philologian says \u0026quot;fraud.\u0026quot;…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e48.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the\u003cbr /\u003ebeginning of the Bible–of God\u0026#39;s mortal terror of _science_?… No one,\u003cbr /\u003ein fact, has understood it. This priest-book _par excellence_ opens, as\u003cbr /\u003eis fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: _he_ faces\u003cbr /\u003eonly one great danger; _ergo_, \u0026quot;God\u0026quot; faces only one great danger.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe old God, wholly \u0026quot;spirit,\u0026quot; wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is\u003cbr /\u003epromenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against\u003cbr /\u003eboredom even gods struggle in vain.[21] What does he do? He creates\u003cbr /\u003eman–man is entertaining…. But then he notices that man is also bored.\u003cbr /\u003eGod\u0026#39;s pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises\u003cbr /\u003eknows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God\u0026#39;s first\u003cbr /\u003emistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining–he sought\u003cbr /\u003edominion over them; he did not want to be an \u0026quot;animal\u0026quot; himself.–So God\u003cbr /\u003ecreated woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end–and also many\u003cbr /\u003eother things! Woman was the _second_ mistake of God.–\u0026quot;Woman, at bottom,\u003cbr /\u003eis a serpent, Heva\u0026quot;–every priest knows that; \u0026quot;from woman comes every\u003cbr /\u003eevil in the world\u0026quot;–every priest knows that, too. _Ergo_, she is also to\u003cbr /\u003eblame for _science_…. It was through woman that man learned to taste\u003cbr /\u003eof the tree of knowledge.–What happened? The old God was seized by\u003cbr /\u003emortal terror. Man himself had been his _greatest_ blunder; he had\u003cbr /\u003ecreated a rival to himself; science makes men _godlike_–it is all up\u003cbr /\u003ewith priests and gods when man becomes scientific!–_Moral_: science is\u003cbr /\u003ethe forbidden _per se_; it alone is forbidden. Science is the _first_ of\u003cbr /\u003esins, the germ of all sins, the _original_ sin. _This is all there is of\u003cbr /\u003emorality._–\u0026quot;Thou shall _not_ know\u0026quot;:–the rest follows from that.–God\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003emortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one\u003cbr /\u003eto _protect_ one\u0026#39;s self against science? For a long while this was the\u003cbr /\u003ecapital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure,\u003cbr /\u003efoster thought–and all thoughts are bad thoughts!–Man _must_ not\u003cbr /\u003ethink.–And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of\u003cbr /\u003echildbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all,\u003cbr /\u003e_sickness_–nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles\u003cbr /\u003eof man don\u0026#39;t _allow_ him to think…. Nevertheless–how terrible!–, the\u003cbr /\u003eedifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing\u003cbr /\u003ethe gods–what is to be done?–The old God invents _war_; he separates\u003cbr /\u003ethe peoples; he makes men destroy one another (–the priests have always\u003cbr /\u003ehad need of war….). War–among other things, a great disturber of\u003cbr /\u003escience!–Incredible! Knowledge, _deliverance from the priests_,\u003cbr /\u003eprospers in spite of war.–So the old God comes to his final resolution:\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Man has become scientific–_there is no help for it: he must be\u003cbr /\u003edrowned!_\u0026quot;…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[21] A paraphrase of Schiller\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;Against stupidity even gods struggle in\u003cbr /\u003evain.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e49.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–I have been understood. At the opening of the Bible there is the\u003cbr /\u003e_whole_ psychology of the priest.–The priest knows of only one great\u003cbr /\u003edanger: that is science–the sound comprehension of cause and effect.\u003cbr /\u003eBut science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable\u003cbr /\u003econditions–a man must have time, he must have an _overflowing_\u003cbr /\u003eintellect, in order to \u0026quot;know.\u0026quot;… \u0026quot;_Therefore_, man must be made\u003cbr /\u003eunhappy,\u0026quot;–this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.–It is\u003cbr /\u003eeasy to see just _what_, by this logic, was the first thing to come into\u003cbr /\u003ethe world:–\u0026quot;_sin_.\u0026quot;… The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;moral order of the world,\u0026quot; was set up _against_ science–_against_ the\u003cbr /\u003edeliverance of man from priests…. Man must _not_ look outward; he must\u003cbr /\u003elook inward. He must _not_ look at things shrewdly and cautiously, to\u003cbr /\u003elearn about them; he must not look at all; he must _suffer_…. And he\u003cbr /\u003emust suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest.–Away with\u003cbr /\u003ephysicians! _What is needed is a Saviour._–The concept of guilt and\u003cbr /\u003epunishment, including the doctrines of \u0026quot;grace,\u0026quot; of \u0026quot;salvation,\u0026quot; of\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;forgiveness\u0026quot;–_lies_ through and through, and absolutely without\u003cbr /\u003epsychological reality–were devised to destroy man\u0026#39;s _sense of\u003cbr /\u003ecausality_: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and\u003cbr /\u003eeffect!–And _not_ an attack with the fist, with the knife, with honesty\u003cbr /\u003ein hate and love! On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly,\u003cbr /\u003ethe most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! An attack of _priests_!\u003cbr /\u003eAn attack of _parasites_! The vampirism of pale, subterranean\u003cbr /\u003eleeches!… When the natural consequences of an act are no longer\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;natural,\u0026quot; but are regarded as produced by the ghostly creations of\u003cbr /\u003esuperstition–by \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot; by \u0026quot;spirits,\u0026quot; by \u0026quot;souls\u0026quot;–and reckoned as merely\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;moral\u0026quot; consequences, as rewards, as punishments, as hints, as lessons,\u003cbr /\u003ethen the whole ground-work of knowledge is destroyed–_then the greatest\u003cbr /\u003eof crimes against humanity has been perpetrated_.–I repeat that sin,\u003cbr /\u003eman\u0026#39;s self-desecration _par excellence_, was invented in order to make\u003cbr /\u003escience, culture, and every elevation and ennobling of man impossible;\u003cbr /\u003ethe priest _rules_ through the invention of sin.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e50.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–In this place I can\u0026#39;t permit myself to omit a psychology of \u0026quot;belief,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003eof the \u0026quot;believer,\u0026quot; for the special benefit of \u0026quot;believers.\u0026quot; If there\u003cbr /\u003eremain any today who do not yet know how _indecent_ it is to be\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;believing\u0026quot;–_or_ how much a sign of _d\u0026#233;cadence_, of a broken will to\u003cbr /\u003elive–then they will know it well enough tomorrow. My voice reaches even\u003cbr /\u003ethe deaf.–It appears, unless I have been incorrectly informed, that\u003cbr /\u003ethere prevails among Christians a sort of criterion of truth that is\u003cbr /\u003ecalled \u0026quot;proof by power.\u0026quot; \u0026quot;Faith makes blessed: _therefore_ it is\u003cbr /\u003etrue.\u0026quot;–It might be objected right here that blessedness is not\u003cbr /\u003edemonstrated, it is merely _promised_: it hangs upon \u0026quot;faith\u0026quot; as a\u003cbr /\u003econdition–one _shall_ be blessed _because_ one believes…. But what of\u003cbr /\u003ethe thing that the priest promises to the believer, the wholly\u003cbr /\u003etranscendental \u0026quot;beyond\u0026quot;–how is _that_ to be demonstrated?–The \u0026quot;proof\u003cbr /\u003eby power,\u0026quot; thus assumed, is actually no more at bottom than a belief\u003cbr /\u003ethat the effects which faith promises will not fail to appear. In a\u003cbr /\u003eformula: \u0026quot;I believe that faith makes for blessedness–_therefore_, it is\u003cbr /\u003etrue.\u0026quot;… But this is as far as we may go. This \u0026quot;therefore\u0026quot; would be\u003cbr /\u003e_absurdum_ itself as a criterion of truth.–But let us admit, for the\u003cbr /\u003esake of politeness, that blessedness by faith may be demonstrated\u003cbr /\u003e(–_not_ merely hoped for, and _not_ merely promised by the suspicious\u003cbr /\u003elips of a priest): even so, _could_ blessedness–in a technical term,\u003cbr /\u003e_pleasure_–ever be a proof of truth? So little is this true that it is\u003cbr /\u003ealmost a proof against truth when sensations of pleasure influence the\u003cbr /\u003eanswer to the question \u0026quot;What is true?\u0026quot; or, at all events, it is enough\u003cbr /\u003eto make that \u0026quot;truth\u0026quot; highly suspicious. The proof by \u0026quot;pleasure\u0026quot; is a\u003cbr /\u003eproof _of_ \u0026quot;pleasure\u0026quot;–nothing more; why in the world should it be\u003cbr /\u003eassumed that _true_ judgments give more pleasure than false ones, and\u003cbr /\u003ethat, in conformity to some pre-established harmony, they necessarily\u003cbr /\u003ebring agreeable feelings in their train?–The experience of all\u003cbr /\u003edisciplined and profound minds teaches _the contrary_. Man has had to\u003cbr /\u003efight for every atom of the truth, and has had to pay for it almost\u003cbr /\u003eeverything that the heart, that human love, that human trust cling to.\u003cbr /\u003eGreatness of soul is needed for this business: the service of truth is\u003cbr /\u003ethe hardest of all services.–What, then, is the meaning of _integrity_\u003cbr /\u003ein things intellectual? It means that a man must be severe with his own\u003cbr /\u003eheart, that he must scorn \u0026quot;beautiful feelings,\u0026quot; and that he makes every\u003cbr /\u003eYea and Nay a matter of conscience!–Faith makes blessed: _therefore_,\u003cbr /\u003eit lies….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e51.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for\u003cbr /\u003eblessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an _id\u0026#233;e fixe_ by no\u003cbr /\u003emeans makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves\u003cbr /\u003eno mountains, but instead _raises them up_ where there were none before:\u003cbr /\u003eall this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a _lunatic\u003cbr /\u003easylum_. _Not_, of course, to a priest: for his instincts prompt him to\u003cbr /\u003ethe lie that sickness is not sickness and lunatic asylums not lunatic\u003cbr /\u003easylums. Christianity finds sickness _necessary_, just as the Greek\u003cbr /\u003espirit had need of a superabundance of health–the actual ulterior\u003cbr /\u003epurpose of the whole system of salvation of the church is to _make_\u003cbr /\u003epeople ill. And the church itself–doesn\u0026#39;t it set up a Catholic lunatic\u003cbr /\u003easylum as the ultimate ideal?–The whole earth as a madhouse?–The sort\u003cbr /\u003eof religious man that the church _wants_ is a typical _d\u0026#233;cadent_; the\u003cbr /\u003emoment at which a religious crisis dominates a people is always marked\u003cbr /\u003eby epidemics of nervous disorder; the \u0026quot;inner world\u0026quot; of the religious man\u003cbr /\u003eis so much like the \u0026quot;inner world\u0026quot; of the overstrung and exhausted that\u003cbr /\u003eit is difficult to distinguish between them; the \u0026quot;highest\u0026quot; states of\u003cbr /\u003emind, held up before mankind by Christianity as of supreme worth, are\u003cbr /\u003eactually epileptoid in form–the church has granted the name of holy\u003cbr /\u003eonly to lunatics or to gigantic frauds _in majorem dei honorem_…. Once\u003cbr /\u003eI ventured to designate the whole Christian system of _training_[22] in\u003cbr /\u003epenance and salvation (now best studied in England) as a method of\u003cbr /\u003eproducing a _folie circulaire_ upon a soil already prepared for it,\u003cbr /\u003ewhich is to say, a soil thoroughly unhealthy. Not every one may be a\u003cbr /\u003eChristian: one is not \u0026quot;converted\u0026quot; to Christianity–one must first\u003cbr /\u003ebe sick enough for it…. We others, who have the _courage_ for health\u003cbr /\u003e_and_ likewise for contempt,–we may well despise a religion that\u003cbr /\u003eteaches misunderstanding of the body! that refuses to rid itself of the\u003cbr /\u003esuperstition about the soul! that makes a \u0026quot;virtue\u0026quot; of insufficient\u003cbr /\u003enourishment! that combats health as a sort of enemy, devil, temptation!\u003cbr /\u003ethat persuades itself that it is possible to carry about a \u0026quot;perfect\u003cbr /\u003esoul\u0026quot; in a cadaver of a body, and that, to this end, had to devise for\u003cbr /\u003eitself a new concept of \u0026quot;perfection,\u0026quot; a pale, sickly, idiotically\u003cbr /\u003eecstatic state of existence, so-called \u0026quot;holiness\u0026quot;–a holiness that is\u003cbr /\u003eitself merely a series of symptoms of an impoverished, enervated and\u003cbr /\u003eincurably disordered body!… The Christian movement, as a European\u003cbr /\u003emovement, was from the start no more than a general uprising of all\u003cbr /\u003esorts of outcast and refuse elements (–who now, under cover of\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity, aspire to power). It does _not_ represent the decay of a\u003cbr /\u003erace; it represents, on the contrary, a conglomeration of _d\u0026#233;cadence_\u003cbr /\u003eproducts from all directions, crowding together and seeking one another\u003cbr /\u003eout. It was _not_, as has been thought, the corruption of antiquity, of\u003cbr /\u003e_noble_ antiquity, which made Christianity possible; one cannot too\u003cbr /\u003esharply challenge the learned imbecility which today maintains that\u003cbr /\u003etheory. At the time when the sick and rotten Chandala classes in the\u003cbr /\u003ewhole _imperium_ were Christianized, the _contrary type_, the nobility,\u003cbr /\u003ereached its finest and ripest development. The majority became master;\u003cbr /\u003edemocracy, with its Christian instincts, _triumphed_…. Christianity\u003cbr /\u003ewas not \u0026quot;national,\u0026quot; it was not based on race–it appealed to all the\u003cbr /\u003evarieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere.\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core–the instinct\u003cbr /\u003eagainst the _healthy_, against _health_. Everything that is\u003cbr /\u003ewell-constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence\u003cbr /\u003eto its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul\u0026#39;s priceless saying:\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;And God hath chosen the _weak_ things of the world, the _foolish_\u003cbr /\u003ethings of the world, the _base_ things of the world, and things which\u003cbr /\u003eare _despised_\u0026quot;:[23] _this_ was the formula; _in hoc signo_ the\u003cbr /\u003e_d\u0026#233;cadence_ triumphed.–_God on the cross_–is man always to miss the\u003cbr /\u003efrightful inner significance of this symbol?–Everything that suffers,\u003cbr /\u003eeverything that hangs on the cross, is _divine_…. We all hang on the\u003cbr /\u003ecross, consequently _we_ are divine…. We alone are divine….\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity was thus a victory: a nobler attitude of mind was destroyed\u003cbr /\u003eby it–Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of\u003cbr /\u003ehumanity.–\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[22] The word _training_ is in English in the text.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[23] 1\u0026#160;Corinthians\u0026#160;i, 27, 28.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e52.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity also stands in opposition to all _intellectual_\u003cbr /\u003ewell-being,–sick reasoning is the only sort that it _can_ use as\u003cbr /\u003eChristian reasoning; it takes the side of everything that is idiotic; it\u003cbr /\u003epronounces a curse upon \u0026quot;intellect,\u0026quot; upon the _superbia_ of the healthy\u003cbr /\u003eintellect. Since sickness is inherent in Christianity, it follows that\u003cbr /\u003ethe typically Christian state of \u0026quot;faith\u0026quot; _must_ be a form of sickness\u003cbr /\u003etoo, and that all straight, straightforward and scientific paths to\u003cbr /\u003eknowledge _must_ be banned by the church as _forbidden_ ways. Doubt is\u003cbr /\u003ethus a sin from the start…. The complete lack of psychological\u003cbr /\u003ecleanliness in the priest–revealed by a glance at him–is a phenomenon\u003cbr /\u003e_resulting_ from _d\u0026#233;cadence_,–one may observe in hysterical women and\u003cbr /\u003ein rachitic children how regularly the falsification of instincts,\u003cbr /\u003edelight in lying for the mere sake of lying, and incapacity for looking\u003cbr /\u003estraight and walking straight are symptoms of _d\u0026#233;cadence_. \u0026quot;Faith\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003emeans the will to avoid knowing what is true. The pietist, the priest of\u003cbr /\u003eeither sex, is a fraud _because_ he is sick: his instinct _demands_ that\u003cbr /\u003ethe truth shall never be allowed its rights on any point. \u0026quot;Whatever\u003cbr /\u003emakes for illness is _good_; whatever issues from abundance, from\u003cbr /\u003esuperabundance, from power, is _evil_\u0026quot;: so argues the believer. The\u003cbr /\u003e_impulse to lie_–it is by this that I recognize every foreordained\u003cbr /\u003etheologian.–Another characteristic of the theologian is his _unfitness\u003cbr /\u003efor philology_. What I here mean by philology is, in a general sense,\u003cbr /\u003ethe art of reading with profit–the capacity for absorbing facts\u003cbr /\u003e_without_ interpreting them falsely, and _without_ losing caution,\u003cbr /\u003epatience and subtlety in the effort to understand them. Philology as\u003cbr /\u003e_ephexis_[24] in interpretation: whether one be dealing with books, with\u003cbr /\u003enewspaper reports, with the most fateful events or with weather\u003cbr /\u003estatistics–not to mention the \u0026quot;salvation of the soul.\u0026quot;… The way in\u003cbr /\u003ewhich a theologian, whether in Berlin or in Rome, is ready to explain,\u003cbr /\u003esay, a \u0026quot;passage of Scripture,\u0026quot; or an experience, or a victory by the\u003cbr /\u003enational army, by turning upon it the high illumination of the Psalms of\u003cbr /\u003eDavid, is always so _daring_ that it is enough to make a philologian run\u003cbr /\u003eup a wall. But what shall he do when pietists and other such cows from\u003cbr /\u003eSuabia[25] use the \u0026quot;finger of God\u0026quot; to convert their miserably\u003cbr /\u003ecommonplace and huggermugger existence into a miracle of \u0026quot;grace,\u0026quot; a\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;providence\u0026quot; and an \u0026quot;experience of salvation\u0026quot;? The most modest exercise\u003cbr /\u003eof the intellect, not to say of decency, should certainly be enough to\u003cbr /\u003econvince these interpreters of the perfect childishness and unworthiness\u003cbr /\u003eof such a misuse of the divine digital dexterity. However small our\u003cbr /\u003epiety, if we ever encountered a god who always cured us of a cold in the\u003cbr /\u003ehead at just the right time, or got us into our carriage at the very\u003cbr /\u003einstant heavy rain began to fall, he would seem so absurd a god that\u003cbr /\u003ehe\u0026#39;d have to be abolished even if he existed. God as a domestic servant,\u003cbr /\u003eas a letter carrier, as an almanac-man–at bottom, he is a mere name for\u003cbr /\u003ethe stupidest sort of chance…. \u0026quot;Divine Providence,\u0026quot; which every third\u003cbr /\u003eman in \u0026quot;educated Germany\u0026quot; still believes in, is so strong an argument\u003cbr /\u003eagainst God that it would be impossible to think of a stronger. And in\u003cbr /\u003eany case it is an argument against Germans!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[24] That is, to say, scepticism. Among the Greeks scepticism was also\u003cbr /\u003eoccasionally called ephecticism.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[25] A reference to the University of T\u0026#252;bingen and its famous school of\u003cbr /\u003eBiblical criticism. The leader of this school was F.\u0026#160;C. Baur, and one of\u003cbr /\u003ethe men greatly influenced by it was Nietzsche\u0026#39;s pet abomination, David\u003cbr /\u003eF. Strauss, himself a Suabian. _Vide_ \u0026#167;\u0026#160;10 and \u0026#167;\u0026#160;28.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e53.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–It is so little true that _martyrs_ offer any support to the truth of\u003cbr /\u003ea cause that I am inclined to deny that any martyr has ever had anything\u003cbr /\u003eto do with the truth at all. In the very tone in which a martyr flings\u003cbr /\u003ewhat he fancies to be true at the head of the world there appears so low\u003cbr /\u003ea grade of intellectual honesty and such _insensibility_ to the problem\u003cbr /\u003eof \u0026quot;truth,\u0026quot; that it is never necessary to refute him. Truth is not\u003cbr /\u003esomething that one man has and another man has not: at best, only\u003cbr /\u003epeasants, or peasant-apostles like Luther, can think of truth in any\u003cbr /\u003esuch way. One may rest assured that the greater the degree of a man\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003eintellectual conscience the greater will be his modesty, his\u003cbr /\u003e_discretion_, on this point. To _know_ in five cases, and to refuse,\u003cbr /\u003ewith delicacy, to know anything _further_…. \u0026quot;Truth,\u0026quot; as the word is\u003cbr /\u003eunderstood by every prophet, every sectarian, every free-thinker, every\u003cbr /\u003eSocialist and every churchman, is simply a complete proof that not even\u003cbr /\u003ea beginning has been made in the intellectual discipline and\u003cbr /\u003eself-control that are necessary to the unearthing of even the smallest\u003cbr /\u003etruth.–The deaths of the martyrs, it may be said in passing, have been\u003cbr /\u003emisfortunes of history: they have _misled_…. The conclusion that all\u003cbr /\u003eidiots, women and plebeians come to, that there must be something in a\u003cbr /\u003ecause for which any one goes to his death (or which, as under primitive\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity, sets off epidemics of death-seeking)–this conclusion has\u003cbr /\u003ebeen an unspeakable drag upon the testing of facts, upon the whole\u003cbr /\u003espirit of inquiry and investigation. The martyrs have _damaged_ the\u003cbr /\u003etruth…. Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to\u003cbr /\u003egive an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism.–But\u003cbr /\u003ewhy? Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid\u003cbr /\u003edown his life for it?–An error that becomes honourable is simply an\u003cbr /\u003eerror that has acquired one seductive charm the more: do you suppose,\u003cbr /\u003eMessrs. Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred\u003cbr /\u003efor your lies?–One best disposes of a cause by respectfully putting it\u003cbr /\u003eon ice–that is also the best way to dispose of theologians…. This was\u003cbr /\u003eprecisely the world-historical stupidity of all the persecutors: that\u003cbr /\u003ethey gave the appearance of honour to the cause they opposed–that they\u003cbr /\u003emade it a present of the fascination of martyrdom…. Women are still on\u003cbr /\u003etheir knees before an error because they have been told that some one\u003cbr /\u003edied on the cross for it. _Is the cross, then, an argument?_–But about\u003cbr /\u003eall these things there is one, and one only, who has said what has been\u003cbr /\u003eneeded for thousands of years–_Zarathustra_.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThey made signs in blood along the way that they went, and their\u003cbr /\u003e folly taught them that the truth is proved by blood.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eBut blood is the worst of all testimonies to the truth; blood\u003cbr /\u003e poisoneth even the purest teaching and turneth it into madness and\u003cbr /\u003e hatred in the heart.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd when one goeth through fire for his teaching–what doth that\u003cbr /\u003e prove? Verily, it is more when one\u0026#39;s teaching cometh out of one\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003e own burning![26]\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[26] The quotations are from \u0026quot;Also sprach Zarathustra\u0026quot; ii, 24: \u0026quot;Of\u003cbr /\u003ePriests.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e54.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eDo not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical.\u003cbr /\u003eZarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the _freedom_ which proceed from\u003cbr /\u003eintellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power,\u003cbr /\u003e_manifest_ themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not\u003cbr /\u003ecount when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and\u003cbr /\u003elack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far\u003cbr /\u003eenough, they do not see what is _below_ them: whereas a man who would\u003cbr /\u003etalk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five\u003cbr /\u003ehundred convictions _beneath_ him–and _behind_ him…. A mind that\u003cbr /\u003easpires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is\u003cbr /\u003enecessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction _belongs_ to\u003cbr /\u003estrength, and to an independent point of view…. That grand passion\u003cbr /\u003ewhich is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic\u0026#39;s existence,\u003cbr /\u003eand is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself,\u003cbr /\u003edrafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him\u003cbr /\u003eunscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain\u003cbr /\u003ecircumstances it does not _begrudge_ him even convictions. Conviction as\u003cbr /\u003ea means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand\u003cbr /\u003epassion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to\u003cbr /\u003ethem–it knows itself to be sovereign.–On the contrary, the need of\u003cbr /\u003efaith, of something unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may\u003cbr /\u003ebe allowed the word, is a need of _weakness_. The man of faith, the\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;believer\u0026quot; of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man–such a man\u003cbr /\u003ecannot posit _himself_ as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself.\u003cbr /\u003eThe \u0026quot;believer\u0026quot; does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an\u003cbr /\u003eend; he must be _used up_; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct\u003cbr /\u003egives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted\u003cbr /\u003eto embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity.\u003cbr /\u003eEvery sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of\u003cbr /\u003eself-estrangement…. When one reflects how necessary it is to the great\u003cbr /\u003emajority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and\u003cbr /\u003ehold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense,\u003cbr /\u003e_slavery_, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being\u003cbr /\u003eof the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once\u003cbr /\u003eunderstands conviction and \u0026quot;faith.\u0026quot; To the man with convictions they are\u003cbr /\u003ehis backbone. To _avoid_ seeing many things, to be impartial about\u003cbr /\u003enothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values\u003cbr /\u003estrictly and infallibly–these are conditions necessary to the existence\u003cbr /\u003eof such a man. But by the same token they are _antagonists_ of the\u003cbr /\u003etruthful man–of the truth…. The believer is not free to answer the\u003cbr /\u003equestion, \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;not true,\u0026quot; according to the dictates of his own\u003cbr /\u003econscience: integrity on _this_ point would work his instant downfall.\u003cbr /\u003eThe pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions\u003cbr /\u003einto a fanatic–Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre,\u003cbr /\u003eSaint-Simon–these types stand in opposition to the strong,\u003cbr /\u003e_emancipated_ spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these _sick_\u003cbr /\u003eintellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the\u003cbr /\u003egreat masses–fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing\u003cbr /\u003eposes to listening to _reasons_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e55.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–One step further in the psychology of conviction, of \u0026quot;faith.\u0026quot; It is\u003cbr /\u003enow a good while since I first proposed for consideration the question\u003cbr /\u003ewhether convictions are not even more dangerous enemies to truth than\u003cbr /\u003elies. (\u0026quot;Human, All-Too-Human,\u0026quot; I, aphorism 483.)[27] This time I desire\u003cbr /\u003eto put the question definitely: is there any actual difference between\u003cbr /\u003ea lie and a conviction?–All the world believes that there is; but what\u003cbr /\u003eis not believed by all the world!–Every conviction has its history, its\u003cbr /\u003eprimitive forms, its stage of tentativeness and error: it _becomes_ a\u003cbr /\u003econviction only after having been, for a long time, _not_ one, and then,\u003cbr /\u003efor an even longer time, _hardly_ one. What if falsehood be also one of\u003cbr /\u003ethese embryonic forms of conviction?–Sometimes all that is needed is a\u003cbr /\u003echange in persons: what was a lie in the father becomes a conviction in\u003cbr /\u003ethe son.–I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse\u003cbr /\u003eto see it _as_ it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not\u003cbr /\u003ebefore witnesses is of no consequence. The most common sort of lie is\u003cbr /\u003ethat by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a\u003cbr /\u003erelatively rare offence.–Now, this will _not_ to see what one sees,\u003cbr /\u003ethis will _not_ to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for\u003cbr /\u003eall who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes\u003cbr /\u003einevitably a liar. For example, the German historians are convinced that\u003cbr /\u003eRome was synonymous with despotism and that the Germanic peoples brought\u003cbr /\u003ethe spirit of liberty into the world: what is the difference between\u003cbr /\u003ethis conviction and a lie? Is it to be wondered at that all partisans,\u003cbr /\u003eincluding the German historians, instinctively roll the fine phrases of\u003cbr /\u003emorality upon their tongues–that morality almost owes its very\u003cbr /\u003e_survival_ to the fact that the party man of every sort has need of it\u003cbr /\u003eevery moment?–\u0026quot;This is _our_ conviction: we publish it to the whole\u003cbr /\u003eworld; we live and die for it–let us respect all who have\u003cbr /\u003econvictions!\u0026quot;–I have actually heard such sentiments from the mouths of\u003cbr /\u003eanti-Semites. On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not\u003cbr /\u003ebecome more respectable because he lies on principle…. The priests,\u003cbr /\u003ewho have more finesse in such matters, and who well understand the\u003cbr /\u003eobjection that lies against the notion of a conviction, which is to say,\u003cbr /\u003eof a falsehood that becomes a matter of principle _because_ it serves a\u003cbr /\u003epurpose, have borrowed from the Jews the shrewd device of sneaking in\u003cbr /\u003ethe concepts, \u0026quot;God,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;the will of God\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;the revelation of God\u0026quot; at\u003cbr /\u003ethis place. Kant, too, with his categorical imperative, was on the same\u003cbr /\u003eroad: this was his _practical_ reason.[28] There are questions regarding\u003cbr /\u003ethe truth or untruth of which it is _not_ for man to decide; all the\u003cbr /\u003ecapital questions, all the capital problems of valuation, are beyond\u003cbr /\u003ehuman reason…. To know the limits of reason–_that_ alone is genuine\u003cbr /\u003ephilosophy…. Why did God make a revelation to man? Would God have done\u003cbr /\u003eanything superfluous? Man _could_ not find out for himself what was good\u003cbr /\u003eand what was evil, so God taught him His will…. Moral: the priest does\u003cbr /\u003e_not_ lie–the question, \u0026quot;true\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;untrue,\u0026quot; has nothing to do with such\u003cbr /\u003ethings as the priest discusses; it is impossible to lie about these\u003cbr /\u003ethings. In order to lie here it would be necessary to know _what_ is\u003cbr /\u003etrue. But this is more than man _can_ know; therefore, the priest is\u003cbr /\u003esimply the mouthpiece of God.–Such a priestly syllogism\u003cbr /\u003eis by no means merely Jewish and Christian; the right to lie and the\u003cbr /\u003e_shrewd dodge_ of \u0026quot;revelation\u0026quot; belong to the general priestly type–to\u003cbr /\u003ethe priest of the _d\u0026#233;cadence_ as well as to the priest of pagan times\u003cbr /\u003e(–Pagans are all those who say yes to life, and to whom \u0026quot;God\u0026quot; is a word\u003cbr /\u003esignifying acquiescence in all things).–The \u0026quot;law,\u0026quot; the \u0026quot;will of God,\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003ethe \u0026quot;holy book,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;inspiration\u0026quot;–all these things are merely words\u003cbr /\u003efor the conditions _under_ which the priest comes to power and _with_\u003cbr /\u003ewhich he maintains his power,–these concepts are to be found at the\u003cbr /\u003ebottom of all priestly organizations, and of all priestly or\u003cbr /\u003epriestly-philosophical schemes of governments. The \u0026quot;holy lie\u0026quot;–common\u003cbr /\u003ealike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the\u003cbr /\u003eChristian church–is not even wanting in Plato. \u0026quot;Truth is here\u0026quot;: this\u003cbr /\u003emeans, no matter where it is heard, _the priest lies_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[27] The aphorism, which is headed \u0026quot;The Enemies of Truth,\u0026quot; makes the\u003cbr /\u003edirect statement: \u0026quot;Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than\u003cbr /\u003elies.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[28] A reference, of course, to Kant\u0026#39;s \u0026quot;Kritik der praktischen Vernunft\u0026quot;\u003cbr /\u003e(Critique of Practical Reason).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e56.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–In the last analysis it comes to this: what is the _end_ of lying? The\u003cbr /\u003efact that, in Christianity, \u0026quot;holy\u0026quot; ends are not visible is _my_\u003cbr /\u003eobjection to the means it employs. Only _bad_ ends appear: the\u003cbr /\u003epoisoning, the calumniation, the denial of life, the despising of the\u003cbr /\u003ebody, the degradation and self-contamination of man by the concept of\u003cbr /\u003esin–_therefore_, its means are also bad.–I have a contrary feeling\u003cbr /\u003ewhen I read the Code of Manu, an incomparably more intellectual and\u003cbr /\u003esuperior work, which it would be a sin against the _intelligence_ to so\u003cbr /\u003emuch as _name_ in the same breath with the Bible. It is easy to see why:\u003cbr /\u003ethere is a genuine philosophy behind it, _in_ it, not merely an\u003cbr /\u003eevil-smelling mess of Jewish rabbinism and superstition,–it gives even\u003cbr /\u003ethe most fastidious psychologist something to sink his teeth into. And,\u003cbr /\u003e_not_ to forget what is most important, it differs fundamentally from\u003cbr /\u003eevery kind of Bible: by means of it the _nobles_, the philosophers and\u003cbr /\u003ethe warriors keep the whip-hand over the majority; it is full of noble\u003cbr /\u003evaluations, it shows a feeling of perfection, an acceptance of life, and\u003cbr /\u003etriumphant feeling toward self and life–the _sun_ shines upon the whole\u003cbr /\u003ebook.–All the things on which Christianity vents its fathomless\u003cbr /\u003evulgarity–for example, procreation, women and marriage–are here\u003cbr /\u003ehandled earnestly, with reverence and with love and confidence. How can\u003cbr /\u003eany one really put into the hands of children and ladies a book which\u003cbr /\u003econtains such vile things as this: \u0026quot;to avoid fornication, let every man\u003cbr /\u003ehave his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; … it is\u003cbr /\u003ebetter to marry than to burn\u0026quot;?[29] And is it _possible_ to be a\u003cbr /\u003eChristian so long as the origin of man is Christianized, which is to\u003cbr /\u003esay, _befouled_, by the doctrine of the _immaculata conceptio_?… I\u003cbr /\u003eknow of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said of\u003cbr /\u003ewomen as in the Code of Manu; these old grey-beards and saints have a\u003cbr /\u003eway of being gallant to women that it would be impossible, perhaps, to\u003cbr /\u003esurpass. \u0026quot;The mouth of a woman,\u0026quot; it says in one place, \u0026quot;the breasts of a\u003cbr /\u003emaiden, the prayer of a child and the smoke of sacrifice are always\u003cbr /\u003epure.\u0026quot; In another place: \u0026quot;there is nothing purer than the light of the\u003cbr /\u003esun, the shadow cast by a cow, air, water, fire and the breath of a\u003cbr /\u003emaiden.\u0026quot; Finally, in still another place–perhaps this is also a holy\u003cbr /\u003elie–: \u0026quot;all the orifices of the body above the navel are pure, and all\u003cbr /\u003ebelow are impure. Only in the maiden is the whole body pure.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[29] 1\u0026#160;Corinthians\u0026#160;vii, 2, 9.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e57.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eOne catches the _unholiness_ of Christian means _in flagranti_ by the\u003cbr /\u003esimple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the\u003cbr /\u003eends sought by the Code of Manu–by putting these enormously\u003cbr /\u003eantithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity\u003cbr /\u003ecannot evade the necessity of making Christianity _contemptible_.–A\u003cbr /\u003ebook of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other\u003cbr /\u003egood law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the\u003cbr /\u003eethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a\u003cbr /\u003econclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of\u003cbr /\u003ethis sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the\u003cbr /\u003eauthority of a slowly and painfully attained _truth_ are fundamentally\u003cbr /\u003edifferent from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book\u003cbr /\u003enever recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a\u003cbr /\u003elaw: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the \u0026quot;thou\u003cbr /\u003eshall,\u0026quot; on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.–At\u003cbr /\u003ea certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the\u003cbr /\u003egreatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight,\u003cbr /\u003edeclares that the series of experiences determining how all shall\u003cbr /\u003elive–or _can_ live–has come to an end. The object now is to reap as\u003cbr /\u003erich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment\u003cbr /\u003eand _hard_ experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided\u003cbr /\u003eabove everything is further experimentation–the continuation of the\u003cbr /\u003estate in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized\u003cbr /\u003e_ad infinitum_. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand,\u003cbr /\u003e_revelation_, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the\u003cbr /\u003elaws are _not_ of human origin, that they were _not_ sought out and\u003cbr /\u003efound by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of\u003cbr /\u003edivine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a\u003cbr /\u003ehistory, as a free gift, a miracle…; and on the other hand,\u003cbr /\u003e_tradition_, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged\u003cbr /\u003efrom time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one\u0026#39;s\u003cbr /\u003eforefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus\u003cbr /\u003egrounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers _lived_ it.–The\u003cbr /\u003ehigher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract\u003cbr /\u003econsciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right\u003cbr /\u003eliving (that is to say, those that have been _proved_ to be right by\u003cbr /\u003ewide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a\u003cbr /\u003eperfect automatism–a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to\u003cbr /\u003eevery sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book\u003cbr /\u003eas Manu\u0026#39;s means to lay before a people the possibility of future\u003cbr /\u003emastery, of attainable perfection–it permits them to aspire to the\u003cbr /\u003ehighest reaches of the art of life. _To that end the thing must be made\u003cbr /\u003eunconscious_: that is the aim of every holy lie.–The _order of castes_,\u003cbr /\u003ethe highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an _order\u003cbr /\u003eof nature_, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary\u003cbr /\u003efiat, no \u0026quot;modern idea,\u0026quot; can exert any influence. In every healthy\u003cbr /\u003esociety there are three physiological types, gravitating toward\u003cbr /\u003edifferentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these\u003cbr /\u003ehas its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and\u003cbr /\u003efeeling of perfection. It is _not_ Manu but nature that sets off in one\u003cbr /\u003eclass those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are\u003cbr /\u003emarked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who\u003cbr /\u003eare distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only\u003cbr /\u003emediocrity–the last-named represents the great majority, and the first\u003cbr /\u003etwo the select. The superior caste–I call it the _fewest_–has, as the\u003cbr /\u003emost perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for\u003cbr /\u003ebeauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of\u003cbr /\u003emen have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can\u003cbr /\u003egoodness escape being weakness. _Pulchrum est paucorum hominum_:[30]\u003cbr /\u003egoodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than\u003cbr /\u003euncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees\u003cbr /\u003e_ugliness_–or indignation against the general aspect of things.\u003cbr /\u003eIndignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. \u0026quot;_The\u003cbr /\u003eworld is perfect_\u0026quot;–so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the\u003cbr /\u003einstinct of the man who says yes to life. \u0026quot;Imperfection, whatever is\u003cbr /\u003e_inferior_ to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala\u003cbr /\u003ethemselves are parts of this perfection.\u0026quot; The most intelligent men, like\u003cbr /\u003ethe _strongest_, find their happiness where others would find only\u003cbr /\u003edisaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with\u003cbr /\u003eothers, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism\u003cbr /\u003ebecomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult\u003cbr /\u003etask as a privilege; it is to them a _recreation_ to play with burdens\u003cbr /\u003ethat would crush all others…. Knowledge–a form of asceticism.–They\u003cbr /\u003eare the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them\u003cbr /\u003ebeing the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they\u003cbr /\u003ewant to, but because they _are_; they are not at liberty to play\u003cbr /\u003esecond.–The _second caste_: to this belong the guardians of the law,\u003cbr /\u003ethe keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all,\u003cbr /\u003ethe king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law.\u003cbr /\u003eThe second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals,\u003cbr /\u003ethe next to them in rank, taking from them all that is _rough_ in the\u003cbr /\u003ebusiness of ruling–their followers, their right hand, their most apt\u003cbr /\u003edisciples.–In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;made up\u0026quot;; whatever is to the _contrary_ is made up–by it nature is\u003cbr /\u003ebrought to shame…. The order of castes, the _order of rank_, simply\u003cbr /\u003eformulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three\u003cbr /\u003etypes is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution\u003cbr /\u003eof higher types, and the highest types–the _inequality_ of rights is\u003cbr /\u003eessential to the existence of any rights at all.–A right is a\u003cbr /\u003eprivilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of\u003cbr /\u003eexistence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the _mediocre_.\u003cbr /\u003eLife is always harder as one mounts the _heights_–the cold increases,\u003cbr /\u003eresponsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand\u003cbr /\u003eonly on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly\u003cbr /\u003econsolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture,\u003cbr /\u003e_science_, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of\u003cbr /\u003e_occupational_ activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and\u003cbr /\u003easpiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the\u003cbr /\u003einstincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as\u003cbr /\u003eto anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a\u003cbr /\u003ewheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not\u003cbr /\u003e_society_, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable\u003cbr /\u003eof, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is\u003cbr /\u003ea form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one\u003cbr /\u003ething, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound\u003cbr /\u003eintellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is,\u003cbr /\u003ein fact, the _first_ prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional:\u003cbr /\u003eit is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the\u003cbr /\u003eexceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than\u003cbr /\u003ehe applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of\u003cbr /\u003eheart–it is simply his _duty_…. Whom do I hate most heartily among\u003cbr /\u003ethe rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the\u003cbr /\u003eChandala, who undermine the workingman\u0026#39;s instincts, his pleasure, his\u003cbr /\u003efeeling of contentment with his petty existence–who make him envious\u003cbr /\u003eand teach him revenge…. Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in\u003cbr /\u003ethe assertion of \u0026quot;equal\u0026quot; rights…. What is _bad_? But I have already\u003cbr /\u003eanswered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from\u003cbr /\u003e_revenge_.–The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e[30] Few men are noble.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e58.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eIn point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference:\u003cbr /\u003ewhether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness\u003cbr /\u003ebetween Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points\u003cbr /\u003eonly toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of\u003cbr /\u003ethis: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied\u003cbr /\u003ea code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the\u003cbr /\u003econditions which cause life to _flourish_ into an \u0026quot;eternal\u0026quot; social\u003cbr /\u003eorganization,–Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such\u003cbr /\u003ean organization, _because life flourished under it_. There the benefits\u003cbr /\u003ethat reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity\u003cbr /\u003ewere applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in\u003cbr /\u003ea harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible;\u003cbr /\u003ehere, on the contrary, the harvest is _blighted_ overnight…. That\u003cbr /\u003ewhich stood there _aere perennis_, the _imperium Romanum_, the most\u003cbr /\u003emagnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has\u003cbr /\u003eever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after\u003cbr /\u003eit appears as patchwork, bungling, _dilletantism_–those holy anarchists\u003cbr /\u003emade it a matter of \u0026quot;piety\u0026quot; to destroy \u0026quot;the world,\u0026quot; _which is to say_,\u003cbr /\u003ethe _imperium Romanum_, so that in the end not a stone stood upon\u003cbr /\u003eanother–and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its\u003cbr /\u003emasters…. The Christian and the anarchist: both are _d\u0026#233;cadents_; both\u003cbr /\u003eare incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous,\u003cbr /\u003edegenerating, _blood-sucking_; both have an instinct of _mortal hatred_\u003cbr /\u003eof everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and\u003cbr /\u003epromises life a future…. Christianity was the vampire of the _imperium\u003cbr /\u003eRomanum_,–overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans:\u003cbr /\u003ethe conquest of the soil for a great culture _that could await its\u003cbr /\u003etime_. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The _imperium\u003cbr /\u003eRomanum_ that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces\u003cbr /\u003eteaches us to know better and better,–this most admirable of all works\u003cbr /\u003eof art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure\u003cbr /\u003eto follow was not to _prove_ its worth for thousands of years. To this\u003cbr /\u003eday, nothing on a like scale _sub specie aeterni_ has been brought into\u003cbr /\u003ebeing, or even dreamed of!–This organization was strong enough to\u003cbr /\u003ewithstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do\u003cbr /\u003ewith such things–the _first_ principle of all genuinely great\u003cbr /\u003earchitecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the\u003cbr /\u003e_corruptest_ of all forms of corruption–against Christians…. These\u003cbr /\u003estealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity,\u003cbr /\u003ecrept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in\u003cbr /\u003e_real_ things, of all instinct for _reality_–this cowardly, effeminate\u003cbr /\u003eand sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all \u0026quot;souls,\u0026quot; step by step,\u003cbr /\u003efrom that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious,\u003cbr /\u003emanly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own\u003cbr /\u003ecause, their own serious purpose, their own _pride_. The sneakishness of\u003cbr /\u003ehypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell,\u003cbr /\u003esuch as the sacrifice of the innocent, the _unio mystica_ in the\u003cbr /\u003edrinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of\u003cbr /\u003eChandala revenge–all _that_ sort of thing became master of Rome: the\u003cbr /\u003esame kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had\u003cbr /\u003ecombatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know _what_ Epicurus made\u003cbr /\u003ewar upon–_not_ paganism, but \u0026quot;Christianity,\u0026quot; which is to say, the\u003cbr /\u003ecorruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and\u003cbr /\u003eimmortality.–He combatted the _subterranean_ cults, the whole of latent\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity–to deny immortality was already a form of genuine\u003cbr /\u003e_salvation_.–Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in\u003cbr /\u003eRome was Epicurean–_when Paul appeared_ … Paul, the Chandala hatred\u003cbr /\u003eof Rome, of \u0026quot;the world,\u0026quot; in the flesh and inspired by genius–the Jew,\u003cbr /\u003ethe _eternal_ Jew _par excellence_…. What he saw was how, with the aid\u003cbr /\u003eof the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism,\u003cbr /\u003ea \u0026quot;world conflagration\u0026quot; might be kindled; how, with the symbol of \u0026quot;God\u003cbr /\u003eon the cross,\u0026quot; all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic\u003cbr /\u003eintrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power.\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;Salvation is of the Jews.\u0026quot;–Christianity is the formula for exceeding\u003cbr /\u003e_and_ summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of\u003cbr /\u003eOsiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his\u003cbr /\u003ediscernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct\u003cbr /\u003ewas here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the\u003cbr /\u003eideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the\u003cbr /\u003emouth of the \u0026quot;Saviour\u0026quot; as his own inventions, and not only into the\u003cbr /\u003emouth–he _made_ out of him something that even a priest of Mithras\u003cbr /\u003ecould understand…. This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the\u003cbr /\u003efact that he _needed_ the belief in immortality in order to rob \u0026quot;the\u003cbr /\u003eworld\u0026quot; of its value, that the concept of \u0026quot;hell\u0026quot; would master Rome–that\u003cbr /\u003ethe notion of a \u0026quot;beyond\u0026quot; is the _death of life_…. Nihilist and\u003cbr /\u003eChristian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e59.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThe whole labour of the ancient world gone for _naught_: I have no word\u003cbr /\u003eto describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.–And,\u003cbr /\u003econsidering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with\u003cbr /\u003eadamantine self-consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to\u003cbr /\u003ego on for thousands of years, the whole _meaning_ of antiquity\u003cbr /\u003edisappears!… To what end the Greeks? to what end the Romans?–All the\u003cbr /\u003eprerequisites to a learned culture, all the _methods_ of science, were\u003cbr /\u003ealready there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art\u003cbr /\u003eof reading profitably–that first necessity to the tradition of\u003cbr /\u003eculture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance\u003cbr /\u003ewith mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road,–_the sense of\u003cbr /\u003efact_, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools,\u003cbr /\u003eand its traditions were already centuries old! Is all this properly\u003cbr /\u003eunderstood? Every _essential_ to the beginning of the work was\u003cbr /\u003eready:–and the _most_ essential, it cannot be said too often, are\u003cbr /\u003emethods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed\u003cbr /\u003eby habit and laziness. What we have today reconquered, with unspeakable\u003cbr /\u003eself-discipline, for ourselves–for certain bad instincts, certain\u003cbr /\u003eChristian instincts, still lurk in our bodies–that is to say, the keen\u003cbr /\u003eeye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the\u003cbr /\u003esmallest things, the whole _integrity_ of knowledge–all these things\u003cbr /\u003ewere already there, and had been there for two thousand years! _More_,\u003cbr /\u003ethere was also a refined and excellent tact and taste! _Not_ as mere\u003cbr /\u003ebrain-drilling! _Not_ as \u0026quot;German\u0026quot; culture, with its loutish manners! But\u003cbr /\u003eas body, as bearing, as instinct–in short, as reality…. _All gone for\u003cbr /\u003enaught!_ Overnight it became merely a memory!–The Greeks! The Romans!\u003cbr /\u003eInstinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization\u003cbr /\u003eand administration, faith in and the _will_ to secure the future of man,\u003cbr /\u003ea great yes to everything entering into the _imperium Romanum_ and\u003cbr /\u003epalpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but\u003cbr /\u003ehad become reality, truth, _life_….–All overwhelmed in a night, but\u003cbr /\u003enot by a convulsion of nature! Not trampled to death by Teutons and\u003cbr /\u003eothers of heavy hoof! But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking,\u003cbr /\u003einvisible, an\u0026#230;mic vampires! Not conquered,–only sucked dry!… Hidden\u003cbr /\u003evengefulness, petty envy, became _master_! Everything wretched,\u003cbr /\u003eintrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole\u003cbr /\u003e_ghetto-world_ of the soul, was at once _on top_!–One needs but read\u003cbr /\u003eany of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to\u003cbr /\u003erealize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It\u003cbr /\u003ewould be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of\u003cbr /\u003eunderstanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:–ah, but they\u003cbr /\u003ewere clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the\u003cbr /\u003echurch! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature\u003cbr /\u003eneglected–perhaps forgot–to give them even the most modest endowment\u003cbr /\u003eof respectable, of upright, of _cleanly_ instincts…. Between\u003cbr /\u003eourselves, they are not even men…. If Islam despises Christianity, it\u003cbr /\u003ehas a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is\u003cbr /\u003edealing with _men_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e60.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eChristianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization,\u003cbr /\u003eand later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of _Mohammedan_\u003cbr /\u003ecivilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was\u003cbr /\u003efundamentally nearer to _us_ and appealed more to our senses and tastes\u003cbr /\u003ethan that of Rome and Greece, was _trampled down_ (–I do not say by\u003cbr /\u003ewhat sort of feet–) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly\u003cbr /\u003einstincts for its origin–because it said yes to life, even to the rare\u003cbr /\u003eand refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!… The crusaders later made\u003cbr /\u003ewar on something before which it would have been more fitting for them\u003cbr /\u003eto have grovelled in the dust–a civilization beside which even that of\u003cbr /\u003eour nineteenth century seems very poor and very \u0026quot;senile.\u0026quot;–What they\u003cbr /\u003ewanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich…. Let us put aside\u003cbr /\u003eour prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more!\u003cbr /\u003eThe German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in\u003cbr /\u003eits element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility\u003cbr /\u003ewas to be _won_…. The German noble, always the \u0026quot;Swiss guard\u0026quot; of the\u003cbr /\u003echurch, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church–_but\u003cbr /\u003ewell paid_…. Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German\u003cbr /\u003eswords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry\u003cbr /\u003ethrough its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this\u003cbr /\u003epoint a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German\u003cbr /\u003enobility stands _outside_ the history of the higher civilization: the\u003cbr /\u003ereason is obvious…. Christianity, alcohol–the two _great_ means of\u003cbr /\u003ecorruption…. Intrinsically there should be no more choice between\u003cbr /\u003eIslam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The\u003cbr /\u003edecision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here.\u003cbr /\u003eEither a man is a Chandala or he is not…. \u0026quot;War to the knife with Rome!\u003cbr /\u003ePeace and friendship with Islam!\u0026quot;: this was the feeling, this was the\u003cbr /\u003e_act_, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors,\u003cbr /\u003eFrederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit,\u003cbr /\u003ebefore he can feel _decently_? I can\u0026#39;t make out how a German could ever\u003cbr /\u003efeel _Christian_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e61.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eHere it becomes necessary to call up a memory that must be a hundred\u003cbr /\u003etimes more painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed for Europe the\u003cbr /\u003elast great harvest of civilization that Europe was ever to reap–the\u003cbr /\u003e_Renaissance_. Is it understood at last, _will_ it ever be understood,\u003cbr /\u003e_what_ the Renaissance was? _The transvaluation of Christian\u003cbr /\u003evalues_,–an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the\u003cbr /\u003eresources of genius to bring about a triumph of the _opposite_ values,\u003cbr /\u003ethe more _noble_ values…. This has been the one great war of the past;\u003cbr /\u003ethere has never been a more critical question than that of the\u003cbr /\u003eRenaissance–it is _my_ question too–; there has never been a form of\u003cbr /\u003e_attack_ more fundamental, more direct, or more violently delivered by a\u003cbr /\u003ewhole front upon the center of the enemy! To attack at the critical\u003cbr /\u003eplace, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more\u003cbr /\u003enoble values–that is to say, to _insinuate_ them into the instincts,\u003cbr /\u003einto the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there …\u003cbr /\u003eI see before me the _possibility_ of a perfectly heavenly enchantment\u003cbr /\u003eand spectacle:–it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of\u003cbr /\u003ea fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so\u003cbr /\u003einfernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years\u003cbr /\u003efor another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance\u003cbr /\u003eand at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should\u003cbr /\u003earouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter–_C\u0026#230;sar Borgia as\u003cbr /\u003epope!_… Am I understood?… Well then, _that_ would have been the\u003cbr /\u003esort of triumph that _I_ alone am longing for today–: by it\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity would have been _swept away_!–What happened? A German\u003cbr /\u003emonk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts\u003cbr /\u003eof an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion _against_ the\u003cbr /\u003eRenaissance in Rome…. Instead of grasping, with profound thanksgiving,\u003cbr /\u003ethe miracle that had taken place: the conquest of Christianity at its\u003cbr /\u003e_capital_–instead of this, his hatred was stimulated by the spectacle.\u003cbr /\u003eA religious man thinks only of himself.–Luther saw only the _depravity_\u003cbr /\u003eof the papacy at the very moment when the opposite was becoming\u003cbr /\u003eapparent: the old corruption, the _peccatum originale_, Christianity\u003cbr /\u003eitself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life!\u003cbr /\u003eInstead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to\u003cbr /\u003eall lofty, beautiful and daring things!… And Luther _restored the\u003cbr /\u003echurch_: he attacked it…. The Renaissance–an event without meaning, a\u003cbr /\u003egreat futility!–Ah, these Germans, what they have not cost us!\u003cbr /\u003e_Futility_–that has always been the work of the Germans.–The\u003cbr /\u003eReformation; Leibnitz; Kant and so-called German philosophy; the war\u003cbr /\u003eof \u0026quot;liberation\u0026quot;; the empire–every time a futile substitute for\u003cbr /\u003esomething that once existed, for something _irrecoverable_…. These\u003cbr /\u003eGermans, I confess, are my enemies: I despise all their uncleanliness\u003cbr /\u003ein concept and valuation, their cowardice before every honest yea\u003cbr /\u003eand nay. For nearly a thousand years they have tangled and confused\u003cbr /\u003eeverything their fingers have touched; they have on their conscience\u003cbr /\u003eall the half-way measures, all the three-eighths-way measures, that\u003cbr /\u003eEurope is sick of,–they also have on their conscience the uncleanest\u003cbr /\u003evariety of Christianity that exists, and the most incurable and\u003cbr /\u003eindestructible–Protestantism…. If mankind never manages to get rid\u003cbr /\u003eof Christianity the _Germans_ will be to blame….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e62.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e–With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I\u003cbr /\u003e_condemn_ Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most\u003cbr /\u003eterrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his\u003cbr /\u003emouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it\u003cbr /\u003eseeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption.\u003cbr /\u003eThe Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has\u003cbr /\u003eturned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and\u003cbr /\u003eevery integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me\u003cbr /\u003eof its \u0026quot;humanitarian\u0026quot; blessings! Its deepest necessities range it\u003cbr /\u003eagainst any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it\u003cbr /\u003e_creates_ distress to make _itself_ immortal…. For example, the worm\u003cbr /\u003eof sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this\u003cbr /\u003emisery!–The \u0026quot;equality of souls before God\u0026quot;–this fraud, this _pretext_\u003cbr /\u003efor the _rancunes_ of all the base-minded–this explosive concept,\u003cbr /\u003eending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing\u003cbr /\u003ethe whole social order–this is _Christian_ dynamite…. The\u003cbr /\u003e\u0026quot;humanitarian\u0026quot; blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of\u003cbr /\u003e_humanitas_ a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to\u003cbr /\u003elie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest\u003cbr /\u003einstincts! All this, to me, is the \u0026quot;humanitarianism\u0026quot; of\u003cbr /\u003eChristianity!–Parasitism as the _only_ practice of the church; with its\u003cbr /\u003ean\u0026#230;mic and \u0026quot;holy\u0026quot; ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the\u003cbr /\u003ehope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross\u003cbr /\u003eas the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever\u003cbr /\u003eheard of,–against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, _kindness_ of\u003cbr /\u003esoul–_against life itself_….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eThis eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all\u003cbr /\u003ewalls, wherever walls are to be found–I have letters that even the\u003cbr /\u003eblind will be able to see…. I call Christianity the one great curse,\u003cbr /\u003ethe one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge,\u003cbr /\u003efor which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and\u003cbr /\u003e_small_ enough,–I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human\u003cbr /\u003erace….\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eAnd mankind reckons _time_ from the _dies nefastus_ when this fatality\u003cbr /\u003ebefell–from the _first_ day of Christianity!–_Why not rather from its\u003cbr /\u003elast?_–_From today?_–The transvaluation of all values!…\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003eTHE END\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/article\u003e"}],"SectionSequence":["Back Link","Work Title","Deck","Author","Period","Era","Composition","Date Note","Region","Terra Avita","Terra Avita Region","Modern Country","Original Title","Language","Primary Discipline","Secondary Discipline","Tradition","Full Versions","Core Thesis","Classification","Arguments","Influence","Significance","Evidence Note","Full Text"],"Counts":{"ContextCards":3,"GeoCards":4,"DisciplineCards":2,"Links":11,"Sections":25,"Styles":3,"Scripts":1}}