Portrait of Adolf Hitler by unknown artist based on a photograph by Hanke.
Throughout the spring and summer of 1923, Hitler steadily became more aggressive. In early March 1923 there was a meeting of paramilitary formations in Munich at which Hermann Esser suggested that if the French advanced across the Rhine, the Entente should be informed that all Jews would be interned and shot if they did not withdraw. It is not clear whether this thought originally came from Hitler, but if it did it would be the first example of his subsequent strategy of using the Jews as hostages for the good behaviour of the western powers.
This brief passage deserves a pause to reiterate what we have been saying so much on this site.
If we take as a paradigm the extreme idealisation of Jewry in the United States of America, it is impossible not to compare it with the pre-Christian world when the Greco-Romans didn’t give a damn about the holocaust of Jews perpetrated in Rome’s wars against Judea, wars that involved several emperors.
In those times it would have been inconceivable that Rome would have used the Jews under its power as a currency for moral blackmail of a rival nation! That enemy-loving crap only began with the introduction of Christian ethics that was exacerbated ad infinitum by the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution, and the creation of the American nation based on Christian principles camouflaged in secular garb. (New visitors to this site should read what Tom Holland wrote about the US in his book Dominion.)
The last words of my previous post on Heydrich give us pause for thought. From this moment in the video linked in the comments section, we hear words that show the gulf between us and the contemporary racial right. I refer to a phrase, already quoted in my recent PDF Crusade against the Cross, that Socrates’ ugliness was practically a refutation to the ancient Greeks.
Alcibiades, ‘the most beautiful man in Greece’ according to the video, represents the ideals of this site; and Socrates represents the methodology of the contemporary racial right. In short, what really counts is physical beauty, the rest follows from there (art, politics, religion, social system, etc.).
As the author of the video said, Nietzsche is very difficult to understand because he is like a fish criticising the water around him. And as I said in one of my first posts about Heydrich, although I will no longer drop names of racialists whose POV I criticise, I can criticise them without mentioning them.
There are a couple of notable racialists who for years now have been talking about Nietzsche without understanding him (one of them has even appeared in the MSM). They don’t get it because the water is Christian ethics, and today that morality has enslaved both the Westerners, including the racialists, and that projection of the West that is Latin America. None of them even realise that they are living in a fish matrix.
Nietzsche would be like the fish that began to develop primitive lungs to get out of the ocean, and we would be animals starting to become adapted to the uninhabited land.
The video linked above is informative, although it bothers me that it contains advertisements from its sponsor.
Today I watched the film from this moment until Otto Hoffman’s speech is interrupted by a phone call from Himmler to Heydrich. The segment made me think and even aroused my emotions.
For example, it came to my mind that Christians of the racial right evoke the figure of Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger, portrayed in the film by Franz Rudnick.
Kritzinger was a German civil servant and Secretary of State in the Reich Chancellery: one of the participants in the Wannsee Conference that established the policies of The Final Solution. After the conference, he attempted to resign from his post in the Chancellery, but his resignation was rejected because ‘it would be worse without him’.
After the war, Kritzinger was arrested, along with most of the other surviving members of the Wannsee Conference, in 1946. During the Nuremberg Trials, he publicly declared himself ashamed of the Reich. He was released in April 1946 but then arrested again in December of the same year. He was later released and shortly afterwards died of natural causes.
With Germans like Kritzinger and Americans like the good Christians of today, we are getting nowhere. On the one hand, they recognise that the Jews want to exterminate the Aryans. On the other hand, they put the interests of the Jew before those of the Aryan when it comes to final solutions, because if it comes to a war to the death between the two races, by feeling compassion for the enemy one is tacitly betraying one’s ethnicity.
I don’t think Christian racialists will see the obvious unless they repudiate the religion of their parents. We saw what happened in Germany after the war. The Anglo-Americans easily denazified the German nation by simply using Judeo-Christian ethics as the default morality, and the ideals of National Socialism were quickly forgotten by these Germans who became, like the rest of Westerners, vile bourgeoisie from the 1950s to the present day.
I think it is even treason to go around saying that the film is making things up and that the SS weren’t exterminationists. That’s why I like David Irving and Mark Weber, because despite being sympathisers of Hitler and the Third Reich they don’t fall into this neochristian temptation of wanting to ‘baptise’, with Christian morality, these SS hierarchs who appear at the round table.
If things continue to go wrong and the Aryans are going to be exterminated, I think only the last generation of whites will discover that from WW2 onwards all Westerners, racialists included, made an astronomical mistake.
Conversely, if the racialists were consistent with their premise of racial protection, they would have to have as martyrs all those at the table who were killed by the Allies when the war ended, except Kritzinger because he never abandoned Judeo-Christian morality. Moreover, if English-speaking racialists were consistent, they would try to learn German to understand National Socialism thoroughly, and even to speak in a language that sounds tougher, more manly, than other European languages.
Otto Hoffman’s little speech, portrayed by Robert Atzorn, which starts here, shows the exact tone as the (still non-existent) priests of the sacred words should be speaking, even if we have zero political power. Remember what Savitri implied: the first step to conquer the world is to have this kind of thinking.
Before I continue commenting on the film where Reinhard Heydrich, the ‘iron-hearted man’, is our hero, I would like to clarify what I recently said about Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Yesterday in the comments section, I said:
I put a painting of Goethe because I mentioned him in my previous post about Heydrich. But the abject slavery of the greatest writers to Christianity is more evident in Dante, for obvious reasons; and Cervantes, who considered his masterpiece not Don Quixote but Los trabajos de Persiles y Sigismunda, where Nordic princes travel around various places in the world to end up arriving in Rome, the seat of the Vatican, and get married.
I started the discussion about Goethe because he is mentioned in the film to the detriment of the SS. But if Nietzsche had respect for him, it is precisely because Goethe represents what I called ‘Bridges’ in January, in the context of Wagner’s musical dramas taking us away from Johann Sebastian Bach’s resounding Christianity. In other words, despite the mixture of his pagan The Ring of the Nibelung with the Christian Parsifal, Wagner takes a few steps towards our side of the psychological Rubicon, even if neither Goethe nor Wagner crossed it (indeed, even Nietzsche himself didn’t fully cross it, having failed to read Gobineau).
So I can be charitable with Goethe as long as we place him as a man of his time. He indeed took a few baby steps on the Rubicon although he had a long way to reach the other shore. From this angle, I have nothing against him or Wagner, and those who want to delve deeper into the subject could reread my article ‘Bridges’.
Goethe is considered the greatest figure of German letters, but what motivated me to write this entry is that, if I mentioned the most famous writer in the Spanish language, Cervantes, and the most influential in Italian Christendom, Dante, what could I say about the greatest figure of English letters, Shakespeare?
Just as on Saturday I mentionedFaust as Goethe’s most popular drama, Hamlet is Shakespeare’s most popular play, so I must say a few words about the latter.
In Crusade against the Cross I said that my purpose was to detect and expose the vestiges of Christianity that still inhabited figures considered stellar in the Western tradition, and I pointed out that there were even those residues in the metaphysics that Nietzsche himself had wanted to elaborate. If Nietzsche had followed the command of the Delphic oracle he would have understood these residues and, perhaps, wouldn’t have become psychotic by the end of his life.
Though fictional, Hamlet is a character who, asking himself a thousand questions as he wanders the vast halls of the Danish castle, he also struggles with mental illness. In my article ‘Hamlet’ last year, I implied that the Greek tragedians knew the human soul better than the great writers of Christendom for the simple reason that the latter have lived under the sky of the fourth commandment, honour our parents, and that this prevented them from seeing that some parents drive their children mad. This is so true that I commented in that article that even Voltaire hadn’t broken with that Christian commandment (it was not until the 20th and 21st centuries that a Swiss writer, Alice Miller, repudiated such a toxic commandment).
But in this entry I didn’t want to talk about the trauma model of mental disorders. I want to put Shakespeare on par with Goethe in the sense that their most famous works, Faust and Hamlet, contain strong Christian residues.
Like Goethe, Shakespeare needs to be contextualised.
What could a continental freethinker do in the mid-16th century during the wars between Catholics and Protestants? Become a recluse. A sceptic of Christianity, Montaigne, did exactly that: something that evokes that many contemporary racialists are now recluses because of social ostracism if they dare to come down from their towers. Montaigne impresses me because he was the true representative of the intellectual side of the Renaissance, in sharp contrast to Erasmus who still lived in the thickest medieval darkness (cf. what I wrote about Erasmus in Daybreak).
England was then freer than Montaigne’s France, and that is the background to understanding William Shakespeare. We know that Shakespeare read Florio’s translations of Montaigne and that he was very impressed by him. Kenneth Clark said that Shakespeare was the first great poet of Christendom without religious beliefs.
(Left, Hamlet by William Morris Hunt, a 19th century painter.) However, like Goethe with his Faust, this is not entirely accurate. Shakespeare’s Hamlet has to be placed within the matrix of Elizabethan England: a time when Christian doctrine was still taken very seriously, both in its Anglican and Papist versions. Hamlet suffered a schizogenic struggle. He struggled internally with the command of his father’s ghost, from purgatory, to avenge him; but Hamlet couldn’t condemn himself, should he commit the mortal sin of murdering his uncle if he was, after all, innocent: a dilemma with which he struggles internally throughout the play.
So despite being influenced by the free-thinking ideas of his time, like Goethe Shakespeare was playing with Christian post-mortem doctrine. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of my autobiographical trilogy, which tries to fulfil Delphi’s mandate, Hamlet certainly represents a breakthrough in insight: it is the first foray into what we may call the true self (as opposed to the false self: the internal struggles we read in Augustine’s Confessions).
What gives Hamlet such evocative power is that the tragedy doesn’t take place on stage but within Hamlet’s soul. The whole play is a soliloquy, and since I have finished my trilogy these days with a postscript to my own tragedy with my father, I would like to quote a few words from Hamlet’s second scene:
Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio!
My father!—methinks I see my father.
A couple of minutes of the 1948 film interpretation from this point onwards portrays Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies very well. Incidentally, I saw that film with my father in 1975: time when he had already mistreated me.
In the penultimate podcast of the Manifest Destiny Series in Volkish site, ‘Show 101: She’s Back’ (I already said something about Show #100 and have yet to listen to #102) the participants talk, once again, about my favourite author: Savitri Devi. I was pleased that they mentioned Counter-Currents (CC) in a derogatory way because only Hitler saves, not the bourgeois racialists on this side of the Atlantic.
After Carolyn Yeager fell ill and discontinued her National Socialist sympathetic podcasts, Manifest Destiny is the only NS podcast I know of. It is curious that the bourgeois Greg Johnson, the editor-in-chief of CC who is also the custodian of the Savitri archive, has published Savitri Devi’s Gold in the Furnace. Curious, I say, because his ‘racialist’ ideology is at the very antipodes of Savitri’s.
In podcast 101, I was surprised that a few seconds before the 28th minute Jake (was it him?) mentioned my ‘four words’ in the sense of avoiding unnecessary suffering of the victims executed in the so-called holocaust. I didn’t expect that! (Himmler himself forbade unnecessary cruelty in his ethnic cleansing campaigns). Also, unlike Carolyn and the commenters who used to comment on her website, those at Manifest Destiny are aware of the Christian Problem and what we have called here the Christian inversion of Aryan values.
Incidentally, I just modified a couple of tags: Jewish Question (JQ) is now called Jewish Problem (JP), and Christian Question (CQ) is now called Christian Problem (CP).
There was something that pleased me after the first hour of discussion: the beautiful is the good and true, an idea that dates back to Socrates. Like David Lane, I cannot conceive of how to save the Aryan race without the cult of the beauty of their physiques, which is why I have insisted so much on images of English roses on this site.
At around 1:35 the participants spoke about something I consider fundamental. They used the word ‘duty’ as a quality of overmen. Savitri had already spoken of this in the first chapter of her Memoirs when she coined the phrase ‘the religion of the strong’. Duty is something that naturally radiates from a personality that, to use Jungian language, has already touched the ‘Self’ with its ego. There is hardly anyone like this in the world today, true National Socialists; it seems that in the Second World War they were all killed.
Before 1:40 one of the participants mentioned that Savitri said that National Socialism would eventually be reborn in Germany. When I see the resounding failure of American white nationalism, so incapable of breaking away from bourgeois and Christian values, it seems to me that this woman might be right.
We shall see what happens now that European leaders, including the German Chancellor, are beating the war drums to start a hotter war against Russia. To continue relentlessly with such strident rhetoric will only end with Berlin, Paris and London under well-deserved nuclear mushrooms. One thing is certain: with or without nuclear war it is a win-win situation for us! A territorial bite at eastern Ukraine when Russia wins, even without a nuclear exchange, will destroy NATO and the European Union…
The brief exchange between Will Williams, an anti-Christian racialist like us, and a Christian commenting on Counter-Currents, reminds me of my dilemma: I want to save Anglo-Germans from the ongoing extinction but most are like a cancerous patient who refuses to see that his cancer is due to smoking.
In other words: the rampant self-loathing from which today’s Aryan suffers is ultimately due to Christian ethics and guilt that grows every day like cancer. For example, the alluded Christian stated: ‘despite [William] Pierce’s brilliance, his agenda is seen as morally repugnant’ by racial right groups—not realising that to wipe out orcs is the only way to survive (remember: millions of them have already invaded the Aryan lands)!
Fortunately, Jared Taylor, the granddaddy of American race realism, is already realising that his country is a goner, as we can see in his latest video.
How long will it take my northern neighbours to appreciate what I say on page 73 of my recent psychobiography on Nietzsche?
My last book, Crusade against the Cross, contains a passage in which I refer to Hollywood contributing to the prolefeed with films that end with the drama being resolved (unlike in real life, where much ends in tragedy, as the Greek tragedians Nietzsche spoke of saw). An example of this American mentality that there are no tragedies, only dramas, can be seen in a YouTube interview of anti-racist Lex Fridman with scientist Richard Haier about The Bell Curve, ‘the most controversial book ever published in science’.
Within a minute from this moment, the interviewer gives away that he has malware installed in his mind: ‘It’s just, it is difficult in a way that… we are limited by our own biology. It’s difficult, and it is, ahem, at least from the American perspective you like to believe that everything is possible in this world’.
Because Fridman is accustomed to the American ideology that the individual of any race or gender who sets out to succeed can make it in the US—the malware precisely!—, he is pained, almost panicked one might say, that there are genetic differences in intelligence. Such science, I would add, would strike a hard blow to the accepted wisdom of the human mind. This is because the psychological mythology of the US is based on Calvinist ethics that the ‘human soul’ is ‘free’ to choose.
‘Common grace’ is a theological concept in Protestant Christianity that refers to the grace of ‘God’ (the mythical god of the Judeo-Christians) that is supposedly common to all humanity, and is limited only by unnecessary cultural factors. It is ‘common’ because its benefits are experienced by or intended for the entire human race, without distinction between one person and another; and it is ‘grace’ because, according to this Reformed thinking of 19th and 20th century Calvinists, it is unmerited and sovereignly bestowed by their god.
Fridman’s interview evokes once again what in my most recent book I called ‘neotheology’: his rationalisations and fears about IQ studies are expressed at a purely secular level. Those fears remind me of an older interview, between David Rubin and Stefan Molyneux, in which the latter was hurt by the IQ difference between the races (though at least Molyneux accepts the data).
What neither Molyneux nor Fridman ask is why, once we move out of countries that emerged from Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular, people no longer suffer from this ‘ogre of the superego’ as far as racial studies are concerned. In Crusade against the Cross I also mentioned that I exchanged emails with Robert Sheaffer last year, a Nietzsche scholar, but I omitted that he told me that race and IQ studies are the most controversial and radioactive subjects in science.
This is true if one only looks at one’s cultural navel. Go to countries that never were, or continue to be, Christian, and neochristianity disappears completely. The Chinese, for example, not only expel Muslims and discriminate against blacks, but they can study eugenics freely in their universities without any guilt whatsoever.
Whites were like the Chinese, and even more racist. I first read The Antichrist forty-eight years ago, and I remember then coming across the passage in which Nietzsche speaks of Manu’s laws in the Indo-Aryan religion (which resemble the Nuremberg laws): a time when no white man was tearing his hair out over this racism simply because the Aryan collective unconscious hadn’t yet been infected with this ogre of the superego.
Sometime before he sent his mad letters, when Nietzsche was charring in Turin, he wrote Ecce Homo: How One Becomes What One Is, which no longer contains any new ideas. Ecce homo was only the presentation of his books under the delirium that he was soon to split history in twain. A few months later, when the martyr of the spirit was interned in the psychiatric hospital in Jena, Adolf Hitler was born. Nietzsche would later be taken by his mother to Naumburg. When her mother died, Elisabeth took her brother to Weimar, where he lived until 1900. The interior of that house, the Nietzsche Archive, can be seen in the video linked in my post this morning.
Adolf Hitler grew up, matured and, when he was already at the height of power, visited the house of the Nietzsche Archive. As a reward for the visit, Elisabeth gave him a relic: her brother’s walking stick!
Unfortunately Hitler didn’t win the war, so the West is now ruled by an anti-Hitlerian, anti-Nazi, anti-national, anti-White, anti-Gentile, anti-male and anti-heterosexual ideology. Because the Anglo-Americans ‘won’ the war, and told—and tell—the story that rules the West, I have to reiterate what I have so often said about the other side of the Wall.
Many among the racialist folk are actively deluding themselves by not recognising the Christian problem. The old saying ‘You can’t solve a problem if you can’t first define it precisely’ applies to those who believe that there is only the Jewish problem and not a Christian problem. Most racialists ignore the history of Constantine and his successors not only explained in some PDFs of our featured post, but even available in books still in print, such as The Darkening Age.
But the problem are all Westerners. From the mighty Woke liberals to the comparatively small racialist reaction, via traditionalist Christians, liberal Christians, agnostics and atheists, all find themselves bending the knee before the cross. Just look at the news these days: kids on the campuses fanatically worshipping the cross, imagining there the recently crucified Palestinian! At the opposite pole, those who belong to the anti-Semitic racial right also worship it, as can be seen in the number of articles in The Unz Review: both authors and commenters pity the same crucified Palestinian! Not to mention the traditional Christians who, literally every day, kneel in their churches in front of an image of the crucified rabbi.
While it is a breakthrough that one aspect of the Jewish Problem is finally beginning to be discussed—the state of Israel—what these people, Christians, atheists, liberals and white nationalists are unable to see is that it is impossible to win the battle by having the cross as the sign in the sky through which they will win. It is impossible to win with Christian ethics because it is a suicidal path that practises the most aggressive dysgenesis.
Unlike all of them, the National Socialists at the top of the Third Reich repudiated not only anti-racism but the very essence of what it means to kneel before the Cross: that a crucified victim is, by definition, morally more worthy than the crucifying Romans. That is why Himmler gave texts about Genghis Khan to the SS: to prepare them psychologically about what, once values are transvalued, we have to do.
Nietzsche was dazzled when he saw how Christians inverted Greco-Roman values through precisely the symbol of the cross:
This reminds me again of the invaluable words of Paul. ‘The weak things of the world, the foolish things of the world, the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, hath God chosen’: this was the formula; decadence was victorious in hoc signo – God on the cross –. Have people still not grasped the gruesome ulterior motive behind this symbol? – Everything that suffers, everything nailed to the cross is divine… Christianity won, and with this, a nobler sensibility was destroyed, – Christianity has been the worst thing to happen to humanity so far. – – [The Antichrist, §51]
The Christianity of Nick Fuentes and the rest of the white nationalists who fantasise about a new religious awakening in their country won’t save the Aryan man from extinction. We already saw what happened when the Iberian Christians conquered the Americas: they immediately became mongrelised despite their Jew-wise Inquisition. Fuentes and company will never save us because the one nailed to the cross was the rebel who raised his hand against Rome; more recently the slave that the English liberated, last century the holocausted Jew, the black American; this century the deranged transexual, etc., and the bad Aryan is supposed to have crucified him.
I would like to end this series with the plea that Nietzsche’s self-immolation after running towards the sun was not in vain.
Let us begin a movement parallel to American white nationalism: a movement in which, though minuscule for the moment—The West’s Darkest Hour—we have already taken up the crusade against the cross!
It’s time to show the nationalists that there is a higher idea than the dumb and stubborn monocausalism they preach. What does it matter if so few people visit this blog, or that hardly anyone comments on the discussion threads of my posts? What matters is to plant the insignificant—microscopic I dare say!—mustard seed in the hope that it will eventually grow and compete with the plant planted two millennia ago by Saul of Tarsus—the worst thing to happen to humanity so far!
I teach you the Overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?… The time has come for man to set himself a goal. The time has come to plant the seed of his highest hope. —Thus Spake Zarathustra
Nietzsche’s guesthouse in Via Carlo Alberto, Turin.
In the first entry of this series, I said that the article by Robert Sheaffer that I first read in 1993 had motivated me to reopen the Nietzsche case, insofar as I consider it central to the point of view of The West’s Darkest Hour. And as I said at the end of the previous entry, once one discovers the primary cause of Aryan decline, everyone else seems idiotic to us, just as the boy who saw the naked king found the adults around him incredibly idiotic.
Becoming like the child of the story represents a huge problem for the adult visionary. ‘Running towards the sun’—Nietzsche’s poetic words to describe himself—in search of ultimate truth results in the visionary being charred, moth-like, as he approaches the primary source of light. No one has described Nietzsche’s dazzling charring better than Stefan Zweig, excerpts from whose book The Struggle with the Daimon I posted more than a decade ago, here.
While I was harsh on Nietzsche in criticising what I call in my autobiography ‘idiotic defence mechanisms’, albeit in his case referring to the eternal return of the identical, I am happy to point out that with The Antichrist this mechanism disappears. Nietzsche himself, in a letter to Franz Overbeck, had acknowledged in April 1884 that his Zarathustra was an ‘anteroom’ and that he was going to spend the next years of his life on ‘the development of my philosophy’.
In The Antichrist, both Zarathustra and the eternal return disappear. Zarathustra would only reappear in his poem Dionysian Dithyrambs, but it is very significant that by this time in December 1888, Nietzsche had already lost his self, and the very title of the first poem of that collection of nine poems to Dionysus is entitled ‘Only Mad! Only Poet!’
That the cause of Nietzsche’s madness was unknown to the doctors who treated him is clear from a letter to Peter Gast of 29 September 1904 written by Otto Binswanger, the director of the Psychiatric Clinic in Jena, where Nietzsche was interned for some months: ‘No one will be able to write an exact medical history of Friedrich Nietzsche’, Binswanger asserted, ‘since the beginnings of the illness have not been fully established’.
Why, then, the mania of the last decades to see the aetiology of Nietzsche’s disorder as a somatic disease? Tip: it is part of Big Pharma’s propaganda to sell us their damned drugs from the 1950s onwards. And the same can be said of those who have written about Vincent van Gogh, who would also be temporarily committed to a psychiatric ward. A better approach to the tragedy of both simultaneous cases can be found in the last words of the third volume of Curt Paul Janz’s extensive biographical study of Nietzsche:
The indulgent veil of mental derangement meant that he no longer had to be aware of it. It gave him something else: the tremendum of the genius chord. Without this ending, the fascination that his entire philosophy exerts on the history of philosophy, which places him close to the heroic-tragic end of Socrates—that Socrates whose rival (at least as much) he wanted to be—would certainly be lacking. But, in Nietzsche, it is not only about the end. His whole existence was a martyrdom. And this opens up for him the connection… with a great community. It means the way from the loneliness so badly endured to belonging to the community of the martyrs of the spirit that is far greater than one is usually willing to admit.
This last sentence has been with me for a long time since a Spanish girlfriend gave me Janz’s book as a present in March 1992, when I was living in Barcelona.
Already in January 1889, Nietzsche sent his incredible missives to several characters, including Franz Overbeck. When Overbeck arrived at the Via Carlo Alberto guesthouse in Turin on 8 January 1889 to rescue his friend, he found him completely mad and ‘surrounded by papers’. After returning Nietzsche to his native Germany, Overbeck took the papers back to Basel and among them, he found the manuscript of The Antichrist, carefully wrapped in a folio. By saving this book, Overbeck saved the key to Nietzsche’s thought. Overbeck wrote to Peter Gast, asking him which works Nietzsche had left unfinished; Gast wrote back and, by return of post, Overbeck replied as follows in February 1889:
Of the Transvaluation of All Values, in particular, there is only the first book, also wrapped in a white folio, with the title:
The Antichrist
Transvaluation of All Values
The second line is crossed out and replaced by the words ‘Curse on Christianity’.
Five weeks later, after reading the work, Overbeck sent Gast another letter, in which he says: ‘In particular, Nietzsche’s conception of Christianity seems to me to be too political, so to speak’. Overbeck wrote that line in criticism, but that is exactly what, 130 years later, David Skrbina would conclude in The Jesus Hoax: that Christianity was originally a political manoeuvre of the Jews against Rome!
It is clear from the correspondence between Overbeck, the first reader of The Antichrist and Gast that, as Nietzsche neared his end, his ideas about his work changed completely. The Transvaluation of All Values had been intended as a four-volume work, of which The Antichrist would have been the first. But Nietzsche himself wrote to George Brandes at the beginning of December 1888: ‘In three weeks I shall give orders for the printing of The Antichrist: Transvaluation of All Values’. In other words, once he had finished The Antichrist Nietzsche decided to burn the midnight oil, and what had been the first part of the work was transformed in its entirety.
A month after his letter to the Jew Brandes, Nietzsche had already carbonised himself internally, writing letters such as ‘to shoot the German emperor and all anti-Semites’. Andrés Sánchez Pascual says that despite the psychotic breakdown, ‘at that moment Nietzsche makes a totally lucid and consistent decision: he crossed out the subtitle “Transvaluation of all values” and under it, he writes the following: “Curse on Christianity”.’
Alas, because Nietzsche lost his mind he didn’t send the manuscript to his publisher, as planned. When, not long afterwards, the manuscript of The Antichrist fell into Elisabeth’s hands, she mutilated not only the subtitle but the climax of the book—the final page—when she published it in 1895! Had her brother not become disturbed, the original version that Overbeck found ready for the press would have been published as early as 1889, after Twilight of the Idols. It was not until Elisabeth died well into the 20th century that all the manuscripts of the Nietzsche Archive were made freely available to researchers.
In 1961, seventy-three years after the work was written, Erich Podach published a landmark book on Nietzschean editions. He showed that The Antichrist had undergone mutilations in addition to those already known, and made known for the first time the ‘Law against Christianity’.
By 1964, what appears to be the definitive edition of Nietzsche’s entire works was underway. Directed by the Italians Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari, it was published simultaneously in German, Italian and French. The following decade I was to benefit from the Spanish translation of The Antichrist as Nietzsche had left the manuscript carefully wrapped in a white folio, translated by Andrés Sánchez Pascual.
Sánchez Pascual tells us that this work ‘is the most coherent conclusion, the necessary conclusion, of his entire mental path. If Nietzsche’s thought does not lead to The Antichrist, it leads nowhere’. And he adds that to remain in his previous texts and ‘not to advance to The Antichrist is, quite simply, not to dare to look Nietzsche in the eye’.
Nietzsche was already forty years old when, in May 1885, his sister Elisabeth (pictured above) married Dr Ludwig Bernhard Förster, a man wise on the Jewish problem. The newlyweds moved to Paraguay to found a Jew-free New Germania. The quixotic enterprise would obviously fail because the only way to achieve such an ideal would have been to conquer the country militarily.
Nietzsche, for his part, finding himself isolated (‘in my most dreadful times of loneliness’) and without social recognition, began to use his soliloquies, missives and philosophy to boost his self-esteem and increasingly overvalue himself: dangerous medicine, for it can lead to a delirium of grandeur. An unpublished draft for a four-part work, which was to be called Noon and Eternity, and which opens with a great hubbub of heralds’ trumpets, announces: ‘The Earth now appears as a marble workshop: a ruling race of indispensable violence is needed’.
In May 1886, when Nietzsche was living in Nice, he published Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. But the futurist philosopher had, as he put it, a ‘dog’s life’ and never understood the rustic, though healthy, flourishing anti-Semitism of the time; or why his sister had become involved with Dr Förster.
After his dreadful experience with Lou, Nietzsche didn’t dare to make any further advances towards women. Nevertheless, he composed music for a poem by Lou, which was later adapted for choir and orchestra by Peter Gast, and then recorded and published. Nietzsche always hoped that his friend Gustav Krug would perform this work in Cologne.
In Monte Carlo, Nietzsche heard the overture to Parsifal for the first time and was rapt. To Gast, he wrote in January 1887: ‘Has Wagner ever composed anything better?’ The following month Nietzsche read, for the first time, Dostoevsky and in July he published On the Genealogy of Morals, written in Sils-Maria, where he makes mention of a term that would become famous in the next century, ‘the blond beast’.
When confronted with the contents of this book we see that, although Nietzsche had lost all his social faculties, he had reached the peak of his intellectual maturity: for the first time in Christendom someone had detected how the Judaic infection had corrupted our souls through the magic of the New Testament! The book is divided into three parts. The first part is a treatise on the psychology of Christianity: a movement that rebelled against the dominance of the aristocratic values of the Greco-Roman world (see the quotations from On the Genealogy of Morals on pages 116-118 of The Fair Race).
A digression is in order here. One of the older commenters on this site never understood why I reject the US as a project of nationhood. I reject it precisely because that country was founded from this inversion of aristocratic values, something that is noticeable even from the time of the American Revolutionary War of Independence, led by Washington (one hundred years before the publication of On the Genealogy of Morals, the Constitution of the US was signed in 1787 in Philadelphia).
In his 1887 book Nietzsche realised that the motive of the early Judeo-Christians was the thirst for revenge of the priestly people par excellence: the Jews. I would add that it shouldn’t surprise us that creating a new nation by the founding cucks, who never rejected the Bible, will end up in New Zion (consider how now the government wants to use the law to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism!). This inversion, Nietzsche tells us, calls evil what was once good, and today’s neo-Christianity (‘liberalism’) is heir to this inversion of the values. Everything inspired by the Bible is not a religion of love, Nietzsche discovered: it is a religion of the deepest hatred of what is good and noble.
No wonder that a powerful nation under the sky of this inversion ended up not only assassinating the Third Reich, but defaming it after its death and, with it, condemning the Aryan race to eventual extinction. I write these paragraphs shortly after Putin and the Russians celebrated, in grand style, Stalin’s victory over Hitler; and on this day they launched a major military assault against enemy forces in Ukraine. This is what prompted my digression. Had it not been for Christian and neo-Christian Anglo-Americans, this May we might be celebrating the defeat of Stalin by the Nazis in a transvalued world: something that the American racial right is still unable to see. But let us return to our German philosopher.
In the autumn of 1887 Nietzsche’s old friend Paul Deussen decided to visit him at Sils-Maria with his wife. His report is worth reading because it paints a very good picture of the hermit:
With a beating heart I rushed to meet my friend and, deeply moved, embraced him after fourteen years of separation. But what changes had taken place in him during that time! The proud attitude, the elastic step, and the flowing words of another time were no longer there. He seemed to be slurring and leaning a little to one side: quite often his speech became clumsy and clipped. Perhaps he wasn’t having a good day either.
‘Dear friend,’ he said gloomily, as he pointed to some passing clouds, ‘to be able to concentrate my thoughts I must have a blue sky above me’. Then he took us to his favourite places. I especially remember a grassy spot, situated next to a chasm, above a mountain stream that roared past in the depths. ‘Here,’ he said, ‘is where I like to lie and where I have my best thoughts’…
The next morning he took me to his dwelling, or as he put it, to his cave…
We left in the afternoon, and Nietzsche accompanied us to the next village, an hour down the valley. Here he spoke once more of the gloomy omens which, alas, were so soon to be fulfilled. When we parted he had tears in his eyes, which I had never noticed in him before. I would never see him again in his right mind.
On the day spring broke out in 1888, Nietzsche asked Gast where he should now go, always in search of the ideal sky: ‘Zurich? Never! The Italian lakes—suffocating, depressing! Switzerland? Still too wintry, cloudy, misty’. In his reply, Gast, his best correspondent who didn’t like to leave Venice, recommended Turin as an intermediate station.
At the beginning of April 1888, Nietzsche left for Turin. This was the year when Van Gogh, who used to paint with as much frenzy as Nietzsche would write that year, would paint his most famous self-portrait and Vase with Fourteen Sunflowers.
Nietzsche felt very much at home in the Italian city—he didn’t even seem much affected by the clouds. Not long afterwards a Danish newspaper reached him with the wonderful news that a professor, Georg Brandes, had started a series of lectures on his books.
