web analytics
Categories
Antichrist (book) Friedrich Nietzsche

Year 100 P.C.

I read ‘Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist: Looking Back From the Year 100’ in late 1993, in a hard copy issued in the winter of 1988/1989: one of the back copies of Free Inquiry that arrived in the mail when I discovered that organisation of freethinkers.

I met the author, Robert Sheaffer, at the 1994 CSICOP conference. If memory serves, he wore sandals, was dressed casually and had a beard. Last year I exchanged some correspondence with him.

Sheaffer is anything but a Hitlerite. However, the article that I abridge below is perfect for understanding a central part of esoteric Hitlerism. I mean that Uncle Adolf’s anti-Christianity, which wasn’t revealed to the masses of Germans (hence the epithet ‘esoteric’), already had antecedents in Germany.

Red emphasis is mine:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Secular humanists have not infrequently criticized the beliefs and practices of the Christian religion, and its harmful effects on civilization and culture. Unfortunately, their voice is seldom heard. The proponents of the Christian world-view vastly outnumber secularists both in number and in activity. While humanists wonder what they they can do to more effectively convey their criticisms of religion, most of them have never read, and indeed have barely even heard of, a book written exactly a century ago containing the most devastating and complete philosophical attack on Christian psychology, Christian beliefs and Christian values ever written: Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist.

1888 was the final productive year of the life of Friedrich Nietzsche, but it was a year of incredible activity. He wrote five books during a six-month period in the latter part of that year. After that, he wrote nothing. Nietzsche’s works of 1888 have not received enough attention, especially given the inclination of many to concentrate primarily on the flamboyant and somewhat confusing Also Spracht Zarathustra, a book of intricate allegories and parables which requires that one already understand the principal elements of Nietzschean thought in order to decipher its hidden relationships and meanings. Zarathustra will be clearer if it is read at the end of a course of study of Nietzsche, not at the beginning.

The first book of 1888 was The Case of Wagner, in which Nietzsche set forth his aesthetic and philosophical objections to the music and the writings of his former close friend Richard Wagner… Next came The Twilight of the Idols (in German, Die Gotzen-dammerung, an obvious parody of Wagner’s Die Gotterdammerung, “The Twilight of the Gods”), in which he criticizes romanticism, Schopenhauer’s pessimism, German culture, Socrates’ acceptance of death as a “healing” of the disease of life, Christianity, and a good many other things. Then, in September of 1888, Nietzsche wrote Der Antichrist.

Unlike Zarathustra, there can be no mistaking the language or the intention of Der Antichrist, a work of exceedingly clear prose and seldom-equalled polemics. Even today, the depth of Nietzsche’s contempt for everything Christianity represents will surprise and shock many people, and not only devout Christians. Unlike other critics of religion, Nietzsche’s attack extends beyond religious theology to Christian-derived concepts that have spread out far beyond their ecclesiastical origins, to the very core of the value-system of Western, Christianized society.

Der Antichrist begins with a warning that “This book belongs to the very few,” perhaps to no one yet living. Nietzsche hints that only those who have already mastered the obscure symbolism of his Zarathustra could appreciate this work. Warnings aside, he begins by sketching the idea of declining vs. ascending life and culture. An animal, a species, or an individual is “depraved” or “decadent” when it loses its instincts for that which sustains its life, and “prefers what is harmful to it.” Life itself presupposes an instinct for growth, for sustinence, for “the will to power”, the striving for some degree of control and mastery of one’s surroundings. Christianity sets itself up in opposition to those instincts, and hence Christianity is an expression of decadence, a negation of the will to life [Antichrist, section 6].

“Pity”, says Nietzsche, is “practical nihilism”, the contagion of suffering. By elevating pity to a value—indeed, the highest value—its depressive effects thwart those instincts which preserve life, establishing the deformed or the sick as the standard of value. [A 7] To Nietzsche, the rejection of pity did not proscribe generosity, magnanimity, or benevolence—indeed, the latter are mandated for “higher” types—; what is rejected is to allow the ill-constituted to define what is good. Nietzsche was not hostile to the sick—Zarathustra bids the sick to “become convalescents”, and expresses sympathetic understanding of their unhappy frame of mind [Z I 3]—but what he opposed was the use of the existence of sickness and other afflications to thereby claim “life is refuted” [Z I 9].

No doubt Nietzsche’s attack on “pity” was triggered in part by his revulsion against Wagner’s blatantly irrational opera Parsifal, in which the formerly irreligious Wagner returned once again to pious Christian themes. In Parsifal, a series of calamities occur because a once-holy knight succumbs to ‘sins of the flesh,’ and it is prophesied that the situation cannot be remedied by any act of self-directed effort, but only by one “through pity made wise, a pure fool.” Nietzsche’s contempt for the limp Christianity in Parsifal and for “the pure fool” knew no bounds. The already-strained bond between the two men, who were once extremely close, was irreparably broken.

Nietzsche explains that the pessimistic philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer is, like Chrisitanity, decadent. Schopenhauer taught that since it is impossible to satisfy the desires of the will, one must ceaselessly renounce striving for what one wants, and become resigned to unhappiness. In the late 19th century Schopenhauer’s doctrines were extremely popular, especially among the Wagnerians. Wagner’s monumental Tristan and Isolde is an expression of Schopenhauerian nihilism, as the lovers sing of the impossibility of earthly happiness, and of their expected mystical union in the realm of “night” after their death. The opera closes with Isolde’s famous liebestod, or “love-death”, as she sings of a vision of her dead lover gloriously and mystically transfigured in the nether-regions, then dies to join him. Schopenhauer was hostile to life, says Nietzsche, “therefore pity became for him a virtue.” [A 7]

Nietzsche charges that Christianity denigrates the world around us as mere “appearance”, a position grounded in the philosophy of Plato and Kant, and hence invents a “completely fabricated” world of pure spirit. However, “pure spirit is pure lie,” and hence the theologian requires one to see the world falsely in order to remain a member in good standing in the religion. The Christian outlook was, he says, immensely bolstered against the attacks of the Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant, whose philosophy renders reality unknowable. (For Kant a virtue is something harmful to one’s life, a view Nietzsche could never accept. If you want to do something, Kant would say your action cannot possibly be virtuous; any action which contains an element of self-interest is by definition not virtuous.) Nietzsche summarizes, “anti-nature as instinct, German decadence as philosophy—that is Kant.” [A 8-11]

Nietzsche praises the skeptic (or “free spirit”) who rejects the priestly inversion of “true” and “untrue”. He says we skeptics no longer think of human life as having its origins in “spirit” or in “divinity”, but recognize the human race as a natural part of the animal kingdom. We accept the mechanistic view of animals as machines which was first boldly proposed by Descartes. [A 12-14].

Returning to the theme of Christian doctrine as misrepresentation, Nietzsche charges that “in Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.” The religion deals with imaginary causes (such as God, soul, spirit) and imaginary effects (sin, grace, etc.), and the relationships between imaginary beings (God, souls, angels, etc.). It also has its own imaginary natural science (wholly anthropormorphic and non-naturalistic), an imaginary human psychology (based on repentance, temptation, etc.), as well as an imaginary teleology (apocalypse, the kingdom of God, etc.). Nietzsche concludes that this “entire fictional world has its roots in the hatred of the natural” world, a hatred which reveals its origin. For “who alone has reason to lie himself out of actuality? He who suffers from it” [A 15]. Here is the proof which convinced Nietzsche that Christianity is not only decadent in its origins, but rotten to its very core: no one reasonably satisfied with his own mind and abilities would wish to see the real world replaced with a lie.

Comparing religions, Nietzsche came to the conclusion that in a healthy society, its gods represent the highest ideals, aspirations, and sense of competence of that people. For example, Zeus and Apollo were obviously powerful ideals for Greek society, an image of the mightiest mortals projected into the heavens. Such gods are fully human, and display human strengths and weaknesses alike. The Christian God, however, shows none of the normal human attributes and appetites. It is unthinkable for this God to desire sex, food, or even openly display revengefulness (as did the Greek gods). Such a God is clearly emaciated, sick, castrated, a reflection of the people who invented him. If a god symbolizes a people’s perceived sense of impotence, he will degenerate into being merely “good” (an idealized image of the kind master, as desired by all slaves), void of all genuinely human attributes. The Christian God represents the “divinity of decadence,” the reduction of the divine into a God who is the contradiction of life. Those impotent people who created such a God in their own image do not wish to call themselves “the weak,” so they call themselves “the good.” [A 16-19].

Nietzsche next compares Christianity to Buddhism. Both, he says, are religions of decadence, but Buddhism is a hundred times wiser and more realistic. Buddha does not demand prayer or aesceticism, demanding instead ideas which produce repose or cheerfulness. Buddhism, he says, is most at home in the higher and learned classes, while Christianity represents the revengeful instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed. Buddhism promotes hygiene, while Christianity repudiates hygiene as sensuality. Buddhism is a religion for mature, older cultures, for persons grown kindly and gentle—Europe is not nearly ripe for Buddhism. Christianity, however, tamed uncivilized barbarians, needing to subjugate wild “beasts of prey,” who cannot control their own “will to power.” The way it did so was to make them sick, making them thereby too weak to follow their destructive instincts. Thus Buddhism is a religion suited to the decadence and fatigue of an ancient civilization, while Christianity was useful in taming barbarians, where no civilization had existed at all. [A 20-22].

Nietzsche next emphasises Christianity’s origin in Judaism, and its continuity with Jewish theology. He was fond of pointing out the essential Jewishness of Chrisitianity as a foil to the anti-Semites he so despised, effectively taunting them, ‘you who hate the Jews so, why did you adopt their religion?’. It was the Jews, he asserts, who first falsified the inner and outer world with a metaphysically complete anti-world, one in which natural causality plays no role. (One might of course object that such a concept considerably predates Old Testament times.) The Jews did this, however, not out of hatred or decadence, but for a good reason: to survive. The Jews’ will for survival is, he asserts, the most powerful “vital energy” in history, and Nietzsche admired those who struggle mightily to survive and prevail. As captives and slaves of more powerful civilizations—the Babylonians and the Egyptians—the Jews shrewdly allied themselves with every “decadence” movement, with everything that weakens a society, not because they were decadent themselves, but in order to weaken their oppressors. Thus, Nietzsche views the Jews as shrewdly inculcating guilt, resentment, and other values hostile to life among their oppressors as a form of ideological germ warfare, taking care not to become fully infected themselves. This technique was ultimately successful in defeating stronger parties—Babylonians, Egyptians, and Romans—by in essence making them “sick,” and hence less powerful. (The Romans, of course, succumbed to the Christian form of Judaism, in this view.) This parallels St. Augustine’s comment, quoting Seneca, that the Jews “have imposed their customs on their conquerors.” [A 23-26; De Civitate Dei VI 11]

“On a soil falsified in this way, where all nature, all natural value, all reality had the profoundest instincts of the ruling class against it, there arose Christianity, a form of mortal hostility to reality as yet unsurpassed.” The revolt led by Jesus was not primarily religious, says Nietzsche, but was instead a secular revolt against the power of the Jewish religious authorities. The very dregs of Jewish society rose up in “revolt against ‘the good and the just’, against ‘the saints of Israel’.” This was the political crime of Jesus, a crime of which he was surely guilty, and for which he was crucified. Nietzsche examines the psychology of Jesus, as is best possible from the Biblical accounts, and detects a profound sense of withdrawl: resist not evil, the kingdom of God is within you, etc. He sees parallels in the psychology of Christ not with some hero, but with Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot. (Dostoyevsky is not mentioned here by name, but we know from other sources that this is the “idiot” Nietzsche had in mind.)

Nietzsche deduces that the earliest Christians sought to retreat into a state of extreme withdrawl from ‘the world’, undisturbed by reality of any kind. They rejected all strong feelings, favorable or otherwise. Their fear of pain, even in infinitely small amounts, “cannot end otherwise than in a religion of love.” Thus Nietzsche sees early Christianity as promoting an extremely dysfunctional state resembling autism, a defense mechanism for those who cannot deal with reality. Noting Christianity’s claims to ‘deny the world’, and its stand in opposition to every active virtue, Nietzsche asks how can any person of dignity and accomplishment not feel ashamed to be called a Christian? [A 27-30; 38]…

By placing the center of life outside of life, in ‘the beyond’, Nietzsche says we deprive life of any focus or center whatsoever. The invention of ‘the immortal soul’ automatically levels all rank in society: “‘immortality’ conceded to every Peter and Paul has so far been greatest, the most malignant attempt to assassinate noble humanity”. Thus “little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes,” thereby obiliterating all distinctions grounded in merit, knowledge or accomplishment. Christianity owes its success to this flattering of the vanity of “all the failures, all the rebellious-minded, all the less favored, the whole scum and refuse of humanity who were thus won over to it.” For Christianity is “a revolt of everything that crawls upon the ground directed against that which is elevated: the gospel of the ‘lowly’ makes low.” Here we clearly see Nietzsche’s repudiation of Christianity’s attitudes as well as its theology: as he pointedly noted in Ecce Homo, “no one hitherto has felt Christian morality beneath him”. All others saw it as an unattainable ideal. [A 43; EH 4 (“Why I Am a Fatality”) 8] Pre-Christian thinkers did not, of course, see poverty as suggestive of virtue, but rather of its absence. One point Nietzsche was unable to either forgive or forget was that the enemies of the early Christians were ‘the intelligent ones’, persons far more civilized, erudite, and accomplished than themselves, people who Nietzsche felt more fit to rule than the Christians.

Nietzsche sees the Gospels as proof that corruption of Christ’s ideals had already occurred in those early Christian communities. They say ‘Judge Not!’, then send to Hell anyone who stands in their way. Arrogance poses as modesty. He explains how the Gospel typifies the morality of ressentiment ( a French term Nietzsche used in his German texts), a spirit of vindictiveness and covert revengefulness common among those who are seething with a sense of their own impotence, and hence must hide their desire for vengeance. “Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge,” writes Nietzsche [A 44-45]…

At this point, Nietzsche advises the reader to “put on gloves” when reading the New Testament, because one is in proximity to “so much uncleanliness.” It is impossible, he says, to read the New Testament without feeling a partiality for everything it attacks. The Scribes and the Pharisees must have had considerable merit, to have been attacked by the rabble in such a manner. Everything the first Christians hate has value, for theirs is the unthinking hatred of the rabble for everyone who is not a wretched failure like themselves. Nietzsche sees Christianity’s origins in what Marxists would call “class warfare,” and sides with those possessing learning and self-discipline against those having neither. [A 46].

He next turns to a point essential for the understanding of Nietzschean thought: the inevitability of a ‘warfare’ between Christianity and science. Because Christianity is a religion which has no contact with reality at any point, it “must naturally be a mortal enemy of ‘the wisdom of the world,’ that is to say, of science.” Here “science” is not to be understood as merely the physical sciences, but as any rigorous and disciplined field of human knowledge, all of which are potentially threats to Christian dogma. Hence Christianity must calumniate the “disciplining of the intellect” and intellectual freedom, bringing all organized secular knowledge into disrepute; for “Paul understood the need for the lie, for faith.” Nietzsche refers to the Genesis fable of Eve’s temptation, asking whether its significance has really been understood: “God’s mortal terror of science”? The priest perceives only one great danger: the human intellect unfettered. Continuing the metaphor of science as eating from ‘the tree of knowledge’:

Science makes godlike—it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific. Moral: science is the forbidden as such—it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, the original sin. This alone is morality ‘Thou shalt not know’—the rest follows.

The priest invents and encourages every kind of suffering and distress so that man may not have the opportunity to become scientific, which requires a considerable degree of free time, health, and an outlook of confident positivism. Thus, the religious authorities work hard to make and keep people feeling sinful, unworthy, and unhappy. [A 47-49]

In previous works, Nietzsche had emphasised the necessity of struggling hard to uncover truth, of preferring an unpleasant truth to an agreeable delusion. [The Gay Science 344; Beyond Good and Evil 39 ] Consequently, he sees another reason for being suspicious of Christianity in its notion that “faith makes blessed,” i.e., creates a state of pleasure in harmony with God. He re-iterates that whether or not a doctrine is comforting tells us nothing about its truth. Nor does the willingness of martyrs to suffer and die for a belief constitute any proof of veracity, suggesting that a visit to a madhouse will suffice to demonstrate the fallaciousness of such arguments. Martyrdoms have, in fact, been a great misfortune throughout history because “they have seduced” us into questionable doctrines. “Blood is the worst witness of truth”. [A 50-51, 53]

Christianity, says Nietzsche, needs sickness as much as Hellenism needed health. (To understand this point, compare a Greek statue of a tall, handsome, naked god with a Christian religious image of an unhygenic, slovenly figure suffering greatly.) One does not “convert” to Christianity, but rather one must be made “sick enough” for it. The Christian movement was, from its beginning, “a collective movement of outcast and refuse elements of every kind,” seeking to come to power through it. “In hoc signo decadence conquered.” Christianity also stands in opposition to intellectual, as well as physical, health. To doubt becomes sin. Nietzsche defines faith as “not wanting to know what is true,” a description which strikes me as stunning, and quite exact. [A 51-52]…

Nietzsche now turns to consider why the lie is told. Once again, Christian teachings are compared to those of another religion, that of Manu, “an incomparably spiritual and superior work.” Unlike the Bible, the Law-Book of Manu is a means for the “noble orders” to keep the mob under control. Here, human love, sensuality, and procreation are treated not with revulsion, but with reverence and respect. After a people acquires a certain experience and success in life, its most “enlightened,” most “reflective and far-sighted class” sets down a law summarizing its formula for success in life, which is represented as a revelation from a deity, for it to be accepted unquestioningly. Such a set of rules is a formula for obtaining “happiness, beauty, benevolence on earth.” This aristocratic group considers “the hard task a privilege… life becomes harder and harder as it approaches the heights—the coldness increases, the responsibility increases.” All ugly manners and pessimism are below such leaders: “indignation is the privilege of the Chandala” (Indian untouchable). What is bad? “Everything that proceeds from weakness, from revengefulness.” [A 57]

Thus Nietzsche holds that the purpose for the lie of “faith” makes a great difference in the effect it will have on society. Do the priests lie in order to preserve (as in the book of Manu, and presumably Greek myth), or to destroy (as in Christianity)? Thus Christians and socialist Anarchists are identical in their instincts: both seek solely to destroy. The Roman civilization was a magnificent edifice for the prosperity and advancement of life, “the most magnificent form of organization under difficult circumstances which has yet been achieved”, which Christianity sought to destroy because life prospered within it. These “holy anarchists” made it a religious duty to destroy ‘the world’, which actually meant, ‘destroy the Roman Empire’. They weakened the Empire so much that even “Teutons and other louts” could conquer it. Christianity was the “vampire” of the Roman Empire. These “stealthy vermin,” shrouded in night and fog, crept up and “sucked out” from everyone “the seriousness for true things and any instinct for reality.” Christianity moved truth into ‘the beyond’, and “with the beyond one kills life.”

Before charging Nietzsche with possibly irresponsible invective, compare the above with Gibbon’s summary of the role of Christianity in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of a military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity.

On the positive side, Gibbon notes that even though Christianity clearly hastened the demise of Rome, it “mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors”. This would seem to parallel Nietzsche’s view that Christianity seeks to control the uncivilized not by teaching them the self-discipline needed to control their own impulses, but by making them too “sick” to do a great deal of harm. [A 58; Gibbon, Chapter 38 ]

“The whole labor of the ancient world in vain”: thus does Nietzsche overstate the magnitude of the calamity. (Our civilization’s heritage from classical antiquity is obviously far from nothing!). Nonetheless, no one who prefers civilization to barbarism can be indifferent to the point here raised. Nietzsche emphasises that the foundations for a scholarly culture, for science, medicine, philosophy, and art, had all been magnificently laid in antiquity, only to be destroyed by the advent of Christianity. Today, he says, we have certainly made great progress, but each of us still retains bad Christian habits and instincts which we must work hard to overcome. Two thousand years ago, we had acquired that clear eye for reality, patience, attention to detail, seriousness in even small matters—and it was not obtained by “drill” or from habit, but flowed naturally from a civilized instinct. All this was lost! And it was not lost to some natural disaster or destroyed by “Teutons and other buffalos” (Nietzsche’s contempt for German nationalism and militarism knew no bounds!) but it was “ruined by cunning, stealthy, invisible, anemic vampires. Not vanquished-merely drained. Hidden vengefulness, petty envy become master.” Everything that was miserable and filled with bad feelings about itself came to the top at once. [A 59]…

The meaning and significance of the Renaissance is considered in this next-to-last section of Der Antichrist. “The Germans have cheated Europe out of the last great cultural harvest which Europe could still have brought home—that of the Renaissance.” Nietzsche views the Renaissance as “the revaluation of Christian values,” that is, the repudiation of life-denying Christian values and their replacement with secular values which emphasise art, culture, learning, etc. With the Renaissance in Italy, Christianity was being repudiated at its very seat. “Christianity no longer sat on the Papal throne! Life sat there instead!”

Nietzsche envisions the immortal roar of laughter that would have risen up from the gods on Mount Olympus had Cesare Borgia actually succeeded in his ruthless quest to become Pope. (The notorious murderer and poisoner Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI, spread his power ruthlessly across Italy. Father and son appointed or poisoned Cardinals as needed to position the son for election as the next Pope. However, the plan went awry when they accidentally tasted some wine that had been “prepared” to rid themselves of a wealthy cardinal! The father died, and the son became gravely ill, and was hence in no position to coerce the selection of his father’s successor.)

Nietzsche laments that this great world-historical event—life returning to Western culture—was ultimately undone by the work of “a German monk,” Martin Luther, who harbored the vengeful instincts of “a failed priest.” Through Luther’s Reformation, and Catholicism’s answer to it, the Counter-Reformation, Christianity was restored. [A 60] One might be tempted to dismiss Nietzsche’s dramatic interpretation of the Renaissance, except that his view meshes with that of Jacob Burckhardt, the single most influential historian of Renaissance civilization who ever lived. Burckhardt’s monumental work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860), has influenced the study of that period as much as Gibbon’s Decline and Fall did that of ancient Rome. Neitzsche and Burckhardt were colleagues at the University of Basle, and friends as well. In the first section of his Civilization, Burchkardt writes that the greatest danger ever faced by the Papacy was its secularization during the Renaissance.

The danger that came from within, from the Popes themselves and their nipoti (relativies, “nepotism”), was set aside for centuries by the German reformation… The moral salvation of the papacy was due to its mortal enemies… Without the reformation—if indeed it is possible to think it away—the whole ecclesiastical state would have passed into secular hands long ago.

Pope Julius II, powerfully anti-Borgia, was “the savior of the Papacy,” who put an end to the practice of the buying and selling of Church positions. However, the Counter-Reformation “annihlated the higher spiritual life of the people,” according to Burckhardt. Nietzsche would have said this was because they had become Christian once again.

The final section of Der Antichrist contains “the most terrible charge” against the Christian Church that “any prosecutor has ever uttered… I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty—I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.” Nietzsche suggests that instead of calculating time from the “unlucky day” on which this “fatality” arose, time should be measured instead from its last day: “from today.” [A 62].

Needless to say, Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist did not prove to be the dagger in the heart of Christianity he hoped it would. After finishing this work (which was not actually published until 1895), Nietzsche wrote Ecce Homo, a philosophical autobiography, in which we first see signs of the self-aggrandizing delusions which were to characterize his incipient mental collapse. The final major work of 1888 was Nietzsche Contra Wagner, containing more polemics against the “decadence” and anti-Semetism of Wagner’s followers, much of which was taken from his earlier published works. Nietzsche’s philosophical writings end there, in the closing weeks of 1888. No doubt the breakdown which followed was hastened by the frantic pace of work during that period. Living in Turin, Italy, alone as was his habit, he continued to send letters to his family and friends.

Early in January, 1889, Nietzsche collapsed on the street in Turin. Some local people helped him back to his room, and he was soon alone again. On January 6 he sent letters to Burckhardt and to Franz Overbeck, another friend and colleague at the University of Basle, displaying obvious signs of insanity. Burckhardt, quite concerned, consulted Overbeck, who was soon on a train headed for Turin to assist his friend. Overbeck brought Nietzsche back to his mother in Germany. He was placed in an institution for a few months, and was then released to the care of his family, where he lived another eleven years as an invalid. Nietzsche actually died twice: his mind died in 1889, while his body lived on helplessly until 1900…

If Nietzsche’s polemically effective suggestion had been adopted—to begin counting time from the start of Christianity’s presumed demise, the writing of Der Antichrist—then I would now be writing these words in the year 100 P.C., the hundredth year of the post-Christian era. It would obviously be premature to expect such a calendar to gain widespread acceptance today! Yet the failure of Nietzsche’s impossibly high expectations should not cause us to overlook the significance of this monumental work, with its searing insights into the psychology of Christian belief. All those who wish not to renounce life but to affirm it, all who seek to proclaim a triumphant “yes” to human prosperity, knowledge, and happiness, will find in Der Antichrist invaluable insights on how those goals can be achieved—and on what stands on the way of them.
 

Notes:

There are two excellent English translations of Der Antichrist readily available, one by R. J. Hollingdale (Penguin Classics, 1968), the other by Walter Kaufmann (in Kaufmann’s The Portable Nietzsche, Penguin Books, 1978).

Categories
Miscellany

Hitler in English

Yesterday a terrific idea occurred to me: Why not translate all of Hitler’s public speeches with the voice of an English speaker whose native language is English, and upload them to the Internet, adding subtitles so that his message is clear and transparent?

When speaking a couple of days ago about Miguel Serrano we hinted that, in addition to an exoteric Hitlerism, there is an esoteric Hitlerism: the latter, what we try on this site. But normies need exoteric Hitlerism (esoteric Hitlerism was only for the SS, or the few initiates in 21st century NS). And what better than the words of the Führer himself dubbed into English?

If it were possible to do so, I think it would be a great emotional bomb for listeners, who have never heard Uncle Adolf in his own words (only through the filter of malicious Allied propaganda).

But to carry out this idea, a team is required. My native language is neither German nor English. The equipment would require at least one native English speaker with a clear voice, as well as a technician who synchronizes the recording with the image as is done in movies: practically the work of a film studio.

Although it would be laborious and perhaps expensive, the result would be very impressive, and I suppose that a huge number of English speakers would visit that channel to hear Uncle Adolf’s message for the first time in their lives.

Exoteric Hitlerism is for the masses!

Categories
Israel / Palestine War!

Iran

In my post yesterday I highlighted in red an observation by Miguel Serrano about the two collective unconsciousness, and I complained that currently the white man’s soul is enslaved by the Jesus archetype and his commandment to love the enemy: a diametrically opposite archetype to that of the priest-warrior of Hinduism and Islam.

Although Serrano is no longer with us, it could be said that we share the same religion. The only thing I can add for the moment is that I hope the war between Iran and Israel that has just begun drags the usual suspects and reaches Kalki levels of destruction.

Amen.

Categories
Carl Gustav Jung Indo-European heritage

Miguel Serrano

The following is part of a 1994 interview conducted by Kerry Bolton with Miguel Serrano (original in Spanish, here):
 

You define yourself as an ‘Esoteric Hitlerist’. Please explain the term.

Hitler said that ‘whoever thinks that National Socialism is only a political movement doesn’t understand anything’. National Socialism was always Hitlerism, and Hitlerism always had an esoterical background. At the end of the 1930s and during the war years, it was not possible or convenient for this theme to be widely known. However, after the war and its apparent loss, there was no other way for Hitlerism than the esoteric development.

For me, Esoteric Hitlerism is being possessed by the archetypes of the collective unconscious, which the Greeks used to call Gods [emphasis by Editor]—among them Apollo, which is Wotan for the Germans and Vishnu or Shiva for the Hindus—and its development into the individual and collective souls of the actual Hitlerist warriors.

That means a new/old religion, with all of its rituals and myths which are necessary to discover or rediscover. Its central drama is the apparition on this earth of the person of Adolf Hitler, the last Avatar who came to produce this enormous storm of catastrophe to awake all those who are asleep and to open the New Age which will come after the Deluge. That is why we have started to count the beginning of the New Age after the birth of Hitler.

We are in the year 105.
 

How did you arrive at Hitlerism, both esoterically and exoterically?

I arrived at the exoteric Hitlerism from the political Left, very much impressed by the heroic death of the sixty-two young Chilean Nazi followers of my generation in 1938. During the War, I published a magazine in favour of the Axis, called La Nueva Edad (‘the New Era’) and suddenly I met some SS men and little later my Chilean Master, who revealed to me the secret roots of Hitlerism…
 

Does your esotericism imply any form of ritual or worship?

Yes, it does. We in Chile are the only ones who perform public ceremonies similar to those performed at the Congress of Nuremberg, like Autos sacramentales but now not in public anymore. The rituals can be performed in the Equinoxes and the solstices. Also, we use individual concentrations, sometimes in tiny groups…
 

To what extent does your esotericism relate to Jungian archetypes and the use of symbols such as runes?

The runes are significant magic symbols, but the code of their interpretation has been lost and its power is almost destroyed by the malicious vulgarisation made by the Jews. It is necessary to rescue them, as I did in my book Adolf Hitler, The Last Avatar. We must use some of them in our mental combat. However, it is not good to talk openly about all of this.
 

In what circumstances did you come to know Jung? We know that Jung recognised National Socialism as a resurgence of the Wotan ‘Shadow’ of the Germanic folk. Did Jung view the release of this archetype as a positive or a negative phenomenon?

In my book published in England and the US, C. G. Jung & Herman Hesse, A Record of Two Friendships, I explained the circumstances which brought me to meet Jung. He wrote the Foreword to my book The Visits of the Queen of Sheba.

I think that this Swiss professor knew better than anyone else in our time who Hitler really was. In the book of Professor McQuyre, Jung Speaking, published by Princeton University Press, three interviews of Prof. Jung on Hitler are reproduced. One is in The Observer of London, another in an American newspaper and the third in Radio Berlin, at the end of 1938. In these interviews, Jung stated that Hitler was possessed by the collective unconscious of the Aryan race. [Emphasis by Editor—Alas, today whites are literally possessed by the Jesus archetype!] This means that Hitler was the spokesman of the whole Aryan world…

Nevertheless, Jung was a cunning and opportunistic man, as I can see it today. When Hitler was in full power and National Socialism on top, Jung coined the term ‘Two collective unconscious’ [Emphasis by Editor], which was a lethal weapon against the Jews and the Freudians. After the war, this concept disappeared from his writings in such a way that today it is impossible to find it in his complete works. I have a book published in Argentina in 1939 under the name El Yo y el Inconsciente (‘Self and the Unconscious’) where it is explained. Moreover, Jung took a Jewish woman as a secretary.
 

What were the circumstances in which you came to know Ezra Pound? Pound is said to have repudiated his pro-fascist views towards the end of his life and to have regretted his former fascist associations. Is this true?

I met Ezra Pound for the first time in Venice. He was already mute at the time, but he broke his silence with me. I have told this in my book published in Spanish and German under the title Die Goldenen Band, and again in Adolf Hitler, el último Avatara. It is untrue that Pound regretted his pro-fascist views towards the end of his life. He didn’t speak or write at all, therefore he can’t have done this. I think he was in voluntary silence so that no one could force him to make an unwilling declaration. He once wrote: ‘Keep yourself to your old dreams so that our world will not lose hope’.
 

What were the esoteric currents behind the NSDAP and the Third Reich?

Hitlerism as Otto Rahn could say, was Luciferian (nothing to do with Satanism). Lucifer is the Morning Star and the Ruhne ‘Veneris’…
 

The National Socialist regime banned the Thule Society and other occult orders whose members had been involved with the founding of the NSDAP. Why were these orders banned? Did the Thulists and other occultists retain influence in the NS regime?

The Third Reich banned the Thule Society and other occult orders because there was much old nonsense in these clubs, as well as some connections with Freemasonic societies like the Golden Dawn…
 

Do you consider the SS to have been an esoteric order as some authors claim?

The SS was also influenced by the Templar Order, as Julius Evola said to me. There was an elite SS which was working with Tantrism. They didn’t have enough time to fulfil their conceptions. Anyhow, they tried hard to produce the Over-Man by using blood alchemy.
 

So you consider National Socialism to have been strictly a phenomenon arising to meet the needs of the 20th century, or to be more broadly part of an esoteric tradition?

There was an exoteric National Socialism until 1945. After this date, at the end of the war, what followed was the esoteric Hitlerism, which nobody will be able to stop now because it is the ‘constellation’ and revelation of an Archetype which was incarnated in the person of Adolf Hitler, who is immortal because of this fact. It is not a ‘fetishism’ to adore and be at the service of an Archetype. Quite the contrary, this means to be a founder or a warrior-priest of a new-old Religion.
 

How do you view Christianity in relation to National Socialism and fascism, considering many fascist leaders such as Leon Degrelle came to National Socialism from Catholicism?

Hitlerism and Christianity are completely opposed, as are Paganism and Christianity. Christianity has been completely spoiled by Judaism. My dearest friend and comrade Leon Degrelle had great doubts at the end of his life, I am afraid. And by special disposition asked to be cremated like Baldur. This was an Aryan decision and not a Christian one.
 

You are, I believe, a worshiper of Shiva. To what extent is National Socialism a reflection of Hindu cosmology as propounded, for example, by Savitri Devi?

Shiva is the same as Wotan. Both of them at the beginning were only heroes of the polar or hyperborean race, the embodiment of an Archetype. The legend has made them Gods. The first race had the power called odil, vril, which has now been lost. The task of the esoteric Hitlerists is to try to recover this power and become like Shiva or Wotan again: the Over-Man.
 

Do you consider history as cyclic, and if so, do you consider, like Oswald Spengler, the West to be in irreversible decline? Should we seek to ‘save the West’, or—as Nietzsche said—‘to push the falling’ so that something new might emerge?

We are now at the end of the cycle of the Kali-Yuga. It is like a harvest; the exact number of grains have matured and very few have done so. A new age will be about the Sun again in a New Earth, or the soul of the actual Earth. We struggle to save the soul of this Earth, and to avoid that she may perish along with everything else… The ‘acceleration of time’ will come even before what we can think or expect.
 

What role do you think Russia will take in future world affairs? Many liberals and Zionists are fearful of a ‘fascist’ takeover of Russia. Do you think it is likely?

I am always afraid of Russia; there is a seed of madness in this area of the world, surely because of the mixture of the Mongolian and yellow races. The ‘Charter of Charlotenburg’ envisaged for Russia a very serious and deep ethnic division: the Viking and German stock with Europe, and the rest with Asia, Mongolia and China. To have fascism and Nazism in Russia it is necessary to understand the racial problem. The prospect of an open Hitlerist resurgence after decades of propaganda seems remote.
 

How do you view the future of National Socialism? Will National Socialism emerge perhaps under another name and another symbol; or do you see Hitler and the swastika as enduring symbols, perhaps even archetypes with an enduring power of their own?

At this moment I cannot predict the prospect of a Hitlerist resurgence. The only thing that I can say is that I am always surprised that despite decades of brainwashing propaganda, young people are born again as Nazis and admirers of Hitler as if they were ‘reincarnated’ to follow the struggle on Earth. This gives me hope and new energy to continue with the fight.

Hitler and the swastika are enduring and eternal symbols, certainly archetypes with ‘enduring powers of their own’. The Archetype will do the world by itself, even without our best knowledge and beyond our will and our limited span of life. That is our hope, our belief and the only thing that I know.
 

The Chilean military junta was called ‘fascist’ but let in the global corporations and adopted the free market economics of Milton Friedman et al. How did you view the Junta?

The Junta was a disaster for Chile, as were all professional military. Hitlerism and Nazism are completely the opposite of a military dictatorship; Franco was a traitor who destroyed the Falange. General Vargas destroyed fascist ‘integralism’ in Brazil; Antonescu destroyed the Iron Guard in Romania; the military in Chile helped to kill the young Nazis in 1938, and Pinochet helped the Jews coming into Chile as well as Friedman’s liberal super-capitalism.

I was always openly against Pinochet’s regime, totally separating Hitlerism from his dictatorship. Hitlerism is a cosmogonic conception, a totalitarian and theocratic Weltanschauung, in opposition to the totalitarian and demoniac cosmogonic conception of the Jews.
 

What is your view of Islam which presently seems to be the only major force standing in the way of global consumerism and usury?

My view of Islam is not favourable at all. They are also a fanatic monotheistic people, and we are pagans and polytheists.
 

I have read that you have made references to Lucifer. How do you view Lucifer, and is there a connection between Luciferianism and Esoteric Hitlerism?

Yes, I am a Luciferian in the sense that Lucifer is the Morning Star, the ‘most beautiful light’, and the Morning Star is a God-Goddess, Venus. It is more than a planet, it is a comet that has stopped where it is now, to recall to men its divine and spiritual origin and to show them the way to recover it.
 

What is your opinion of ‘neo-Nazism’, which often seems to be influenced by a superficial American-style bigotry rather than a deeper European philosophy? What is your opinion of such neo-Nazi leaders as Lincoln Rockwell?

I will not speak badly of Rockwell. I think he was touched by the lightning of the Archetype and was killed to be reborn in the ‘Last Battalion’. His loyal follower Matt Koehl has been trying hard to keep some spark of the fire alive, even amid this superficial ‘American-style bigotry’.
 

What do you consider Man’s destiny to be? Nietzschean Over-Man? What about space colonisation as the ultimate expression of the Faustian soul?

There is no destiny for all of mankind, only for some. To recover their divinity, but not as ‘unconscious Gods’, but fully conscious, as a total man, in the sense of Jungian ‘individuation’: a God conscious of himself which is only possible to achieve on this Earth. To obtain this is the meaning of Esoteric Hitlerism.
 

Parting word:

I want to express to the young comrades in England, Australia, and New Zealand and the English- and German-speaking world at large, that none of these things will be obtained if we don’t give a synchronistic battle also in the physical world against the Great Enemy, even at the risk of losing our mortal life.

In this, we have a common ideal with the Muslims, who think to die in battle to reach the Heaven of Allah. We believe that if we are killed or murdered for our ideals we will come to Walhalla, where Wotan and our Walkiria will give us, centuplicated, all of that which we were unable to achieve in our warrior life on Earth—but only if we are real Esoteric Hitlerist Warriors!

Categories
Psychology

CQ in a nutshell

In today’s Aryan collective unconscious, the extremely negative introjects and injunctions from a toxified superego are ultimately due to Christianity.

______ 卐 ______

 
There is jargon above but it can be deciphered after reading the middle part of my Day of Wrath. Ayway, it summarises what we mean when talking about the Christian question.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) French Revolution Savitri Devi

Hitler, 33

Le Serment du Jeu de paume by Jacques-Louis David (c. 1791), depicting the Tennis Court Oath.

More immediately relevant to Germany’s predicament were the dramatic recent examples of national revival, where peoples had bounced back from decline or catastrophic defeat. Perhaps surprisingly, Hitler was open to inspiration from France. ‘The French Revolution was national and constructive,’ he argued, ‘whereas the German one wanted to be international and to destroy everything.’ Hitler took a similarly positive view of later French radicalism. ‘When France collapsed at Sedan,’ he wrote, ‘one made a revolution to rescue the sinking tricolour!’ ‘The war was waged with new energy,’ he continued, and ‘the will to defend the state created the French Republic in 1870’, thus restoring ‘French national honour’. This shows that Hitler’s fundamental objection was not to the ‘ideas of 1789’, which he hardly ever mentioned. His real trauma—to which we will return later—was the fragmentation of Germany beginning with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

The way I quote from Brendan Simms’ book may seem strange. I read through it and, when I come across a passage that requires comment, I pause and comment on it here.

The passage above, for example, strikes me as remarkable because it shows us a young Adolf who was unaware that the egalitarian ideas of 1789 were already symptomatic of a cancer in which Christian ethics were secularised to be metastasised in subsequent centuries. Recall that the French had been inspired by the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783 and that in turn these American ideals were inspired by Protestant ethics (those who haven’t read Tom Holland’s Dominion should at least read our excerpts now). The young Hitler, naturally, didn’t have all this in mind. He was first and foremost a politician, not exactly a philosopher and certainly not, to use my metaphor, a visionary who sees the remote past in a cave north of the Wall (for example, to realise that Protestantism is behind today’s mass psychosis if we psychoanalyse the West from the remote past).

One of the things that distinguishes me compared to the American organisation founded by George Lincoln Rockwell is that, unlike the Commander, I am convinced that National Socialism must be understood as an organism in continuous development. And NS is developing even in the darkest age of the West in which Savitri Devi used the metaphor of ‘gold in a furnace’, in the sense that all the chaff burns in the burning furnace and only the element gold, which being a chemical element cannot burn there, will survive it.

Although Savitri came up with this metaphor at a time when the denazification of Germany was in full swing, in our time it could be said that the fire of that furnace has already burnt up all the chaff, except for people like us who continue to believe in Uncle Adolf’s ideals.

But Uncle Adolf couldn’t have known what we now know! His untimely death in 1945 prevented him from realising the levels of anti-white delirium to which the white man would fall after the decades-long process of trying to demonise NS throughout the West!

A mature NS man has to take into account the darkest hour for the white man and explain it. One oblique way to do this is to realise that American white nationalism has gone astray. It is at a dead end, as I said this morning in this thread.

It is high time to be humble; to retrace our steps from that alley, and return to the main avenue leading us to a National Socialism of the 21st and 22nd centuries. But I don’t see that humility anywhere on the racial right…

Categories
Conservatism

Overton

In political theory, the Overton window represents an ideology acceptable to the public. Yesterday watching the interview of Colonel Douglas McGregor by Judge Napolitano, I was impressed that the colonel said that the Israeli lobby controls Western politics, the media and the financial sector because both the colonel and the judge are normies. I used to watch the judge on Fox News and the colonel worked in Donald Trump’s cabinet—in other words, they are both normies.

It’s amazing how the window has expanded as far as the JQ is concerned thanks to Bibi’s genocide in Palestine. While it is more accurate to say that Jews control the aforementioned sectors, clearly the window has expanded. I wonder if, when the Middle East conflict escalates into a regional war, the window of acceptable discourse will expand even further and the JQ will be openly discussed (no longer needing to say that it is just the Israeli lobby)?

It seems that at last, the pendulum of history is beginning to swing to our side. But its inertia is insufficient because the racial right still doesn’t have Uncle Adolf as its guiding star. There are still no leaders with whom the ordinary dissident could identify. Perhaps tomorrow I should resume my comments on Simms’ book.

Categories
Racial right William Pierce

Friendly exchange

Jamie said:

The main reason why I mentioned a video of Jewish Ben Shapiro was that he was openly discussing the Jewish roots of Catholicism and therefore, Judeo-Christianity itself.

This is natural to understand (I am afraid of saying ‘self-evident’). Christianity is Jewish. You worship a Jewish god, therefore, it is logical to realise that Jews and their values are elevated and have a strong grip on the public mindset.

Jews’ racial existence is secured at the expense of the imbecile gentiles. That’s what this spiritual syphilis of a religion ultimately brings.

What surprises me, however, is that those people that I have met and were involved in the so-called ‘movement’ don’t understand this.

They don’t understand, or don’t want to see, the conflict of interest between Aryan racial survival and the worship of a suicidal Jewish cult. Like professional ostriches, they hide their heads under the sand when the Christian Question is brought up.

I have been kicked off of many ‘far right’ groups whenever I questioned Christianity. I must admit, however, that some men in those groups have reached out to me later and said ‘Jamie, you are right. We just keep heading towards disaster.’

But I can do little more than that if I just keep getting banned / silenced by those who organise such gatherings.

Even Dr. Pierce did the same thing to some extent in his weekly podcasts. Egalitarianism is the most harmful idea, he said. Yet, he never brought up that Christianity, the main religion of most Europeans today, has been preaching equality among all races of man since the times of ancient Rome.

So, is it possible to destroy the well-organised Jews while having a Jewish religion as your own? I don’t think so.

I think criticizing Jews before Christianity (and therefore, oneself) is a dead end.
 

I responded:

That there is self-deception in white nationalism as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no doubt.

What you say about Pierce catches my attention. Although when I came to the movement he had already died, I realised from what I could hear from his old podcasts that he did the same thing that Hitler did: Pierce had an exoteric message for the public, but in Who We Are and in a few internal communications he was anti-Christian.

The difference with me is that I think the time has come to talk openly about Christianity: what I do on this site.

You say that you have been kicked out of the right-wing groups where you speak. They just ignore me. Since you have been in the movement longer than me, what percentage do you think its members are Christians? Even secular leaders of the movement like Kevin Mac and Greg Johnson sometimes seem sympathetic to Christianity. Don’t you think so?
 

Jamie said:

Caesar,

Yes, Dr. Pierce was anti-Christian and he always condemned it indirectly in his public speeches, even though most of his audience couldn’t piece it together.

About Christian members of the movement?

Those who follow, often, are not really Christian. Like me, they are just tired of seeing roses [i.e., beautiful women—Ed.] paired together with half-apes sub-humans (which is, for all practical purposes, what really matters in the end) and, if properly guided, they will follow you to destroy this nigger loving world.

The leaders, however, those who organise, set up websites and, curiously, have funding to do all of that, are definitely Christian, or neo-Christians.

There is no secularity in this movement. Almost all of them are afraid of criticizing Christianity out of being further alienated by the feminized masses.

But Greg Johnson is a homosexual, isn’t he? He could never feel a genuine, masculine anger at the idea of having white women with negroes.

How about Dr. McDonald? Is he even married?

Can any of them relate to the 14 words like you do? I highly doubt so, but their male audiences can, and they are frustrated, confused and leaderless.

Categories
Free speech / Free press Hellstorm Holocaust Poetry

Censoring Pound

In the middle of last month, I mentioned a letter I found in my late father’s belongings from a guy who fought against the Germans in WWII and even described some battles to him. That post even contains links to my scans of those missives.

At midnight I made a different, in a sense opposite, find also in my father’s belongings: a book by Uwe Frisch about the German musician Gerhart Müench (1907-1988) who emigrated to Mexico in 1953. [1]

Müench was my mother’s piano teacher. We can even see him giving her a lesson at the National Conservatory of Music of Mexico City for 25 seconds in this video from 1970.

Müench, born in Dresden, was a real scholar, and not only in music. What impressed me about Frisch’s little book, which doesn’t even have a spine, are its last pages (44-45): it collects a poem by Ezra Pound dedicated to his friend Gerhart.

Given that Frisch wrote the book in Spanish (where among other things he translated from German an essay by Müench) now that I wanted to read the original in English of the poem Pound dedicated to Müench, I came across a surprise. The core part of the poem is missing in the PDFs I saw on the internet!

It is very annoying to retranslate a poet into his original language because one lacks the original text. I don’t know if it was deliberately censored, but the part of Pound’s poem that I didn’t find on the internet today is precisely the part that mentions ‘hellfire’ and ‘the fiery river of Hades’ that became ‘Dresden’ because of the Allied bombing, and Pound mentions Gerhart by name in that city ‘while a fiery sky still pours…’

Pound thus speaks of the Hellstorm Holocaust in Dresden, which may be why he was censored in some editions of his book. But his original English words may have been different from the ones I put in inverted commas, as I now retranslate it from my Spanish booklet into the original language.

If there are Pound fans who have an edition of The Cantos where this poem appears uncensored, it would be nice if he came across this post and quoted in English the lines I highlighted in orange on the second page. Both of my parents used to mention Müench in their conversations. Before I discovered Frisch’s booklet I was unaware that he was born in Dresden.
________

[1] Uwe Frisch: Gerhart Müench o De la Poética y la Metafísica de un Compositor (Morelia: Instituto Michoacano de la Cultura, 1985).

Categories
New Testament Richard Carrier

Carrier v. Ehrman

Those who still believe that Jesus existed should watch a relatively recent interview, starting here. The mythicist Richard Carrier exposes the logical fallacies of the historicist Bart Ehrman in a very amusing way: a rarity in audiovisual retorts about the non-historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion. Near the end Carrier cites a quotable quote from Thomas Paine, ‘Time makes more converts than reason’, which evokes what Thomas Kuhn and his readers say about what it takes to change paradigms.

The secret of evolution, both biological in the sense of natural selection, and psychogenic in our psychohistorical sense—paradigm shifts—, is time and death.

Those who are completely unfamiliar with Carrier’s work about the non-existence of Jesus shouldn’t start with that interview but, say, with this lecture.