web analytics
Antichrist (book) Friedrich Nietzsche Richard Wagner

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.

Sheaffer’s complete article can be read here. 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… [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 Christianity 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,” that is, 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, and so on. 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.


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).


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.

'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…

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:


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.

Ancient Greece Autobiography Bible Catholic Church

Mental regression!

In his most recent statement, Gaedhal says the following:

I mentioned Thucydides, because, as Otto English points out in Fake History a distinction is drawn—although largely artificially—between Herodotus and Thucydides.

In my view, the Old Testament takes a Herodotian method. In Genesis, there are three competing and contradictory accounts regarding who pimped his wife to whom. Did Abraham pimp his wife to Pharaoh, or Abimelech or was it his son, Isaac?

Two competing and contradictory accounts of the creation and the flood are given. Two contradictory versions of the binding of Isaac, the Flood, and the Joseph story are poorly woven together and given.

In the main, Herodotus would recount everything he heard, whereas, in the main, Thucydides would critique his sources, and only give the version of events that he found most probable. In the main, Thucydides was willing to throw unreliable stories into the waste-paper basket.

However, as English points out: Herodotus often acts in a Thucydidean way, and Thucydides often acts in a Herodotian way.

Thucydides was an excellent Ancient Historian… however, even the best ancient historian is woefully bad when compared to modern standards. One could not publish Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War as a scholarly monograph and have it pass peer review.

I also agree with Pine Creek Doug that if God is the ultimate author of the Gospels, then we should hold him to the same standards that we would hold a modern PhD historian to. We should be able to publish the four gospels as scholarly monographs and have them pass peer review. We are not able to do this. Thus, God is a poorer historian than any modern human historian who can pass peer review. Do not lower your standards for God!

The first thing that is scraped away by Thucydides’ razor into the waste-paper can is accounts of miracles.

As I said before: Christianity was never in date. The Bible is Herodotian in what it relates, and not Thucydidean. Thucydides essentially discovered how to do modern history in the 400s BCE. One of the things that the Christian Dark Ages reversed was Thucydidean historiography. A continent that had known Thucydides, thanks to Christianity, was soon swamped with Herodotian martyr tales, i.e. unevidenced religious fantasies.

I was listening to Book 1 of History of the Peloponnesian War, last night, by Thucydides. Homer says that an impossible number of Achaeans—essentially the entire population of Ancient Achaia—went off to fight in Troy. Thucydides therefore rejects Homer’s legendary number of Achaean fighters. Similarly, in the Pentateuch, an impossible number of Israelites—essentially the entire population of Ancient Egypt—left Egypt during the Exodus.

If Europe had still been in a Thucydidean mindset, then the stupid Jewish fairytale that is the Exodus would never have been accepted by this continent’s people. Lamentably, it has really only been in relatively modern times that Thucydidean criticism has been applied to the Bible. Spinoza, Valla, Thomas Paine et al. got the ball rolling. However, the Thucydidean ball should never have been stopped. What stopped it? Christianity.

This is why I am of the opinion that the Conflict Thesis—‘systematised academic knowledge’ (i.e. ‘science’ sensu lato) and revealed religion are diametrically opposed to one another—is correct, and also that the Dark Ages were real.

In ancient times, Homer was no less divine than Moses. Indeed, like Jesus Christ, in some legends Homer was born of a virgin. And yet Thucydides contradicted this divine oracle. Lamentably, nobody contradicted Moses until the Renaissance.

The staggering regression that the white man suffered with the imposition of Christianity in the Middle Ages reminds me of what I was saying this year about the friend I knew when I was a teenager and, after decades of not treating him, found him in a state of psychosis: a regression like treating an eighteen-month-old infant! (cf. my series on malignant narcissism: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6).

A sage from ancient India might say something similar if he had been long enough to see Rome before and after the imposition of Christianity by Constantine. What Gaedhal says seems to me very true, and we could even illustrate it with the subject that is my forte: the analysis of my family.

Unlike Protestantism, in Catholicism the Church of Rome claims to have proof of divine intervention through miracles. Psychically, I grew up under my father’s sky where the miracles of the Virgin of Lourdes—the French virgin of the 19th-century Tort family—were taken as absolute fact. The same can be said of my late father’s claims about the 20th-century miracles attributed to the Virgin of Fatima in Portugal. Although after two years of my life studying the Shroud of Turin I ended up sceptical of the supernatural hypothesis, my father continued to believe up to the present century that this Catholic relic proved the resurrection of Jesus. (I studied the literature on the shroud from 1988 to 1990 because I was still struggling with parental introjects—cf. my autobiography.)

When at Easter some of the American white nationalist sites post entries commemorating the day, they have no idea that believing this Jewish fairytale is as dramatic a psychogenic regression as that of the friend whom I knew sane and, after a few decades, I found him with a psychic structure reminiscent of that of a small infant.

Christian art Kali Yuga

Mudblood Jesus

A mudblood Jesus cannot be born to Nordic parents.

Today I was about to read a few more pages of Simms’ book on Hitler. But on my way to the greengrocer to buy fruit this morning, on the corner of my house I was surprised by a Jehovah’s Witness lady with her young children to invite me to an event tomorrow commemorating the death of Jesus, and she gave me the slip of paper you see me holding in the image above. The other image is a well-known Annunciation from the Prado Museum in Madrid that my father had planned to frame before his death.

If we compare the two images, we see that a few centuries ago there was at least an attempt to nordicize biblical characters. When on my last trip to England the historian Arthur Kemp, author of a well-known history of the white race, gave me a tour inside Chester Cathedral, he told me that in the mosaics, which depicted various scenes from the Old Testament, there was an attempt to pictorially nordicize the Semitic characters.

This practice continued into the last century. In the above image we see a memory from more than ninety years ago, in the city of Puebla, of my father’s first communion. Although in the old New Spain days Puebla was the quintessential Criollo city, fanatically Catholic, at least the Novo-Spaniards conceived of the deity in a hyper-Nordic way.

Times have changed! Now Jesus is represented as a vulgar mudblood, as we see in the little piece of paper I was given this morning and which I am holding in my left hand above, next to the copy of Fra Angelico’s Annunciation, done in gold and tempera on panel, and painted around 1425-1426: the main scene, with the theme of the Annunciation of a hyper-Nordic angel to a blonde Virgin Mary.

For the typical Christian mentality, this metamorphosis from Nordic characters to mudbloods causes no stress, since, they argue, ‘we are all equal in the eyes of God’ (the notorious god of the Jews). But for us priests of the fourteen words this change can only mean that we are already in Kali Yuga. Most seriously, it is no longer possible to reverse the art as the white man has only recently realised that the biblical characters were indeed Semitic, not Aryan as the Renaissance artists imagined them.

Film Metaphysics of race / sex

Enchanted night

Many years ago I saw Andrei Rublev and, as I talked about the film yesterday, I was subsequently rewatching some scenes. I hadn’t realised that Durochka betrays Andrei and her Russian ethnicity by eloping with the Tatar when Andrei had taken her back to the monastery; not immediately after the Tatar massacre in Vladimir. But I wanted to talk about something else, my favourite scene of the film: the religious festival called Kupala Night, in 1408, when some Slavs hadn’t yet been forced to convert to the Semitic religion.

In the film, camping for the night on the riverbank, Andrei and his apprentice Foma are gathering firewood when Andrei hears the distant sounds of a celebration upstream in the forest. Going to investigate Andrei alone, he comes across a large group of naked non-Christians, who are performing a torch-lit ritual for the summer solstice. Andrei, dressed austerely as an Orthodox monk, is intrigued, but is caught spying on a couple making love and is tied to the crossbeam of a hut in a mockery of Jesus’ crucifixion.

A blonde woman named Marfa, scantily clad in a fur coat, approaches Andrei. After explaining that her people are persecuted for their beliefs, she drops her coat, kisses Andrei and unties him.

The monk runs away and gets lost in the dense forest, scratching his face. The next morning, he returns to his people when a group of soldiers appear on the riverbank chasing the non-Christians who had celebrated Kupala Night, including Marfa. They capture her companion but she escapes naked by swimming in the river. A beautiful scene! But Andrei and his fellow monk look the other way in shame because, according to the Semitic religion, it is sinful to watch a beautiful female body naked.

In the next episode, on a road during summer, Andrei confesses to another monk that he cannot do the task assigned to him by the bishop of Moscow. Although Andrei didn’t relapse into paganism after the enchanted night, as a principled artist he doesn’t want either to terrorise the Russian people, and refused to paint the Last Judgement. (As I was saying recently, Hitler realised that Christianity brought spiritual terror to the Aryan man.)

Later comes the Tatar invasion which, in 1983, I saw on the big screen of the cinema inside the Russian embassy in Mexico City. Although I don’t want to re-watch that scene on YouTube now, I remember it as a masterpiece that evokes my fantasy of the greenseer north of the Wall that can see the historical past as it happened.

Ethnic cleansing Tom Holland

Brutal inertia

What I said to Jamie on Tuesday has got me thinking a bit.

At the end of Who We Are, William Pierce said that history has tremendous inertia: a phrase that made a big impression on the way I see the world. It is a phrase that should resonate with those who want to save the white race from extinction because it has great explanatory power for what is happening.

The present subtitle of this site says that the enemy to be identified is Christianity. But I actually mean the morality bequeathed to us by Christianity, which has reached truly psychotic levels of metastasis in the secular—and supposedly anti-Christian!—West with the Woke fad.

Ever since various Roman emperors introduced ‘spiritual terror’ into the Aryan psyche (Hitler’s phrase in one of his after-dinner talks during WW2), through parental introjects whites have been transmitting this malware to their progeny. This happened until, in the last century, Uncle Adolf tried to transvalue values. That’s why euthanising millions of retards, deporting the subversive tribe out of Germany, or even genocide of non-Aryans began to take place, in the first half of the 1940s, in Poland and the Soviet Union.

The inertia is apparent when we see that on this side of the Atlantic Pierce suggested the same thing but only at the novel level, in The Turner Diaries (published as a serial from 1975 to 1978). Dates are important here. In Who We Are (published as a serial from 1978 to 1982), which is non-fiction, we do see isolated phrases about the need for expulsion and extermination, but not as frankly and directly as the SS Master Plan East.

In the early 1940s, there was already, at least in Europe’s most powerful country, an effective transvaluation of all Christian values. After the catastrophic defeat and the triumph of the forces of Evil, a mind as extraordinarily lucid as Pierce’s had to speak in novel form, or say things between the lines if he spoke in a non-fiction format. But then historical inertia pulled the Aryan’s collective unconscious, once again, back into Christian morality! Today’s nationalists ‘know’ that genocide is iniquitous, especially if practised for racial or eugenic reasons. This is evident even in the mainstream forums of contemporary white nationalism, where it would be inconceivable to promote exterminationism even between the lines as Pierce did, let alone the overt exterminationism of the Nazis’ Master Plan East.

The historical backlash has been such that, in reaction to the Third Reich, the entire West has been regressing to a kind of 13th and 14th-century neo-Franciscanism (see my discussion of St Francis on pages 132-137 of Daybreak). In my previous posts, I talked about the relevance of studying cases of mental disorders of a specific subject, and in the comments section I linked videos of psychologists talking about how certain types of disturbed subjects suffer a regression in which they sometimes look like toddlers. We can already imagine the same phenomenon but on the scale of an entire civilisation (Western civilisation). And I don’t say at the level of an entire race because Latin Americans, who aren’t white, are also suffering from Wokism. This radically secularised phase of Christian values only affects nations that wholeheartedly embraced Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see no open rebellion against this inertia anywhere, whose pendulum has now reached its psychotic phase. I see no transvaluation even in the forums of the racial right. On the contrary: unlike the hardcore Nazis and Pierce, there is a clear attempt to distance oneself from any idea of eliminating the enemy by ethnic cleansing. The inexorable force in this era is the backlash due to the values bequeathed by the New Testament, as Tom Holland has seen in Dominion and his lectures and interviews. (Holland himself is infected with these inverted values, but his axiological analysis of the West is spot on.)

Intelligence quotient (IQ) Psychology

On Sam Vaknin

Although I still believe what I said in December in ‘Deep, deep within’ about the Jewish question, today I received a shock when I saw how the Jew Sam Vaknin showed his subversive colours, whom I referred to in recent posts when psychoanalysing Marco in my series on malignant narcissism.

Vaknin is a typical subversive Jew living in the West! In this video I started watching today he says that women will dominate the society of the future because male muscle power is obsolete. He also says that the future of the US will be brown in a hundred years because whites are on their way out; and that both are inexorable processes that only troglodytes rebel against. (Following his perverse logic, I guess Negresses will be in charge of the US of the future!)

So this clinical psychologist is as crazy as the malignant narcissists he psychoanalyses: something very common in the so-called mental health professions—fraudulent professions that I have criticised much on this site. (The racial right has been blind on this issue. What white nationalist knows that psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology are pseudo-scientific?) What bothers me most is that Vaknin’s insights into the aetiology of narcissism are valid. But in the video linked above he mixes his valid insights with the monstrosities he says.

For anyone who didn’t get the message, I would like to repeat something I have already said here and in my autobiographical books.

Since the traitorous Western world empowered the Jews after WW2, the greatest findings in depth psychology were not made by Aryans (which would have happened if Hitler had won the war), but by Jews. For example, as far as the abuse of children by their parents is concerned, the greatest breakthrough was to take the side of the child, not the parents or society. And that step was taken by the Swiss-Jewish Alice Miller. In my series on narcissism, I mentioned Silvano Arieti, who unravelled with his treatise the inner world of the schizophrenic. He was an Italian Jew who fled to the United States at the time of the Third Reich. Jeffrey Masson, another Jew, also opened my eyes to the malignity of Freudian psychoanalysis.

What I do in my books on parental child abuse is simply to use the findings of these guys and relocate them from the Aryan POV, which is also possible with Vaknin’s work on malignant narcissism. The difference is that the latter, in the video linked above, seems much more subversive in his message than the other Jews mentioned.

There is nothing wrong with appropriating the findings of Jews as long as we purge them of their subversive messages. However, someone unfamiliar with the JQ will be unable to do so. The work of Kevin MacDonald, for example, is useful for this kind of task. But as long as there is no purely Aryan state, and as Hitler wanted, a Lebensraum where Aryans can flourish unmolested by non-whites, those with the highest IQ, the Jews, will continue to serve as spearheads in various fields where high intellect is required.

The mere fact that in recent centuries Jews have overtaken Whites in IQ should provoke hatred of Christianity since Christianity has for two millennia been dysgenic (unlike the eugenics practised by Ashkenazi Jews). Gaedhal recently quoted me in one of his communiqués recalling my complaint that good Aryan sperm ended up in the asses of convent novices, when it should have ended up in Aryan vaginas, during Christendom. Since the monks were the carriers of good genes as far as IQ is concerned, that was grotesque dysgenesis that whites self-inflicted on themselves out of their paranoid horror of libido we see in, for example, Augustine’s Confessions.

Without Christianity, the Jews would never have won the IQ race against the Greco-Romans in a hypothetical world where Constantine would have been defeated outside Rome.

Immanuel Kant Pedagogy Psychology

Narcissism, 4

Yesterday I ended my post by mentioning the word introject. Like all other cultures, the West is in a very primitive state as far as self-knowledge is concerned. If we take ancient Delphi as a paragon of Aryan wisdom, even the most prominent western thinkers and philosophers of the Christian Era have been but slaves to what I have metaphorically called ‘Semitic malware’ (Judeo-Christianity): the introjects of their parents and educators. I only discovered this in my own mind when, well into my sixties, writing a passage in my third autobiographical book, I was astonished to discover that my mind had, literally, been programmed with Christian introjects since childhood. The details I explain there but suffice it to say here that, before that passage in my last book, I was under the impression that I had been a relatively free and moral agent—precisely the Christian belief in free will—, and that my father’s influence wasn’t as absolute as, now, I am astonished to acknowledge.

But in this entry, I don’t want to talk about autobiography but about biographies. In my 2021 post, ‘On Shelob’s Lair’, I had said that Francis Bacon regarded metaphysical philosophers as weavers of cobwebs. Now I would like to delve a little deeper into Immanuel Kant’s biography.

This German was born in 1724 in Königsberg, which was East Prussia: territories Germany lost after WW2. If the so-called philosophers were lovers of wisdom, as the etymology of the word philosophy says, Prussia would still be part of a German Reich. We can already imagine a world where, instead of metaphysical cobwebs, the great philosophers of classical German idealism, starting with Kant, would have devoted themselves to what Gobineau (1816-1882) would eventually devote himself to: the study of the races. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Kant was educated in the stern spirit of Protestant pietism: first by his mother, a pious woman, and then at the Collegium Fridericianum, famous as a pietistic school. During 1740-1746 the lad Kant continued to be brainwashed with theology at the University of Königsberg, where he was greatly influenced by Christian Wolff. If we keep in mind what was said about the role played by the mother in the previous entry, it becomes clear that from an early age the introjects are a kind of building blocks that form a psychic edifice: the structure of a mind in the making. There is no point in giving the details of Kant’s life as a young man because it is clear that his mind was already Christianly structured from an earlier age.

In his late thirties, it is important to mention that Kant wrote Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes (The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God). Since the young philosopher lived during the Age of Enlightenment, although he never wanted to destroy metaphysics, he did want to put it on new critical foundations. This reminds me that a well-known proponent of the American racial right once called himself a ‘neo-normie’. Kant’s metaphysics was actually a ‘neo-theology’, as we are about to see.

Kant worked for many years on his major work, Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1781 (he died in his hometown in 1804). But what is ‘metaphysics’ according to Kant? Kant simply starts from the conceptions of his time, when philosophy had been trying to become independent of theology as an infant tries to individuate himself before a schizogenic mother. This is so true that Kant himself declares that the contents of metaphysics are no more and no less than the contents of Christian theology. He writes that the ‘inevitable tasks of pure reason are God, freedom and immortality’ (B7). And later he reiterates: ‘Metaphysics has as the specific aim of its investigation only three ideas: God, freedom and immortality’ (B 395).

It couldn’t be clearer: due to the introjects of his early age, the mature philosopher remains the servant of the Christian theologian. (A philosopher of a true age of enlightenment would use the plural to refer to providence, as he would be a man who has already transvalued the monotheistic values of Judeo-Christianity to the Gods of the Delphic inscription.) It doesn’t matter that in his first Critique Kant concludes that metaphysics, as a science, is not possible. The fact that he even returns to the same triad—God, the immortality of the human soul and freedom—when he already writes about ‘practical reason’ speaks for itself. Kant even states: ‘I had therefore to do away with knowledge to make room for faith’ (B XXX).

As I said in ‘Shelob’s Liar’, Kant’s prose is abominable. This major spider was a creature who never successfully rebelled against maternal and scholastic introjects. Even his so-called pure, a priori knowledge was a conception of metaphysics that was rooted in the Cartesian approach and Leibniz’s analytical judgements: a type of metaphysics already removed from the Aristotelian tradition. Let us not forget that, among Christian Wolff’s disciples, there were several 18th-century philosophers, including Kant.

Quite apart from the fact that the obscurantist prose of the exponents of classical German idealism is intolerable to any sane reader, my point is obvious. The human mind is a structure. Our parents and guardians lay the bricks of the structure that will become our egos, against which it’s very difficult to rebel successfully. Recall the quote from Margaret Mahler in the previous entry, who in analysing the psychology of toddlers discovered that interpersonal relationships are internalised within the ego or what we call the Self. Once internalised, we are slaves to what we have been calling ‘parental introjects’, even the so-called great philosophers.

The first cousin

If Kant, the greatest German philosopher of the so-called Age of Reason, was a creature of mom’s introjects, what could a little Mexican do in the face of the introjects of an even more engulfing mother than a pietistic one raising her child with Prussian ethics?

I invited Marco’s cousin again, who came to my house this very day that I’m writing, whom I won’t mention by name and surname because, given that the name ‘Marco’ I have used is real, and that the only person who visits him in his cobwebbed house is his cousin, I don’t want some Spanish-speaking person in the curious country where I live to find out, through Google, that I’ve been writing about them.

Anyway, I hope tomorrow to continue unravelling this bizarre psychodrama with another entry.