The AntiChrist

THE ANTICHRIST

Or

How to Celebrate Easter

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Antichrist, by F. W. Nietzsche

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The Antichrist

Author: F. W. Nietzsche

Translator: H. L. Mencken

Release Date: September 18, 2006 [EBook #19322]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ANTICHRIST ***

Produced by Laura Wisewell and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

THE ANTICHRIST

BORZOI POCKET BOOKS

A complete list to date of this series of popular reprints, bound

uniformly with a design and endpapers by Claude Bragdon, may be found at

the back of this volume. One book will appear each month, numbered for

convenience in ordering.

                             THE ANTICHRIST

                                  _by_

                            F. W. NIETZSCHE

                      _Translated from the German

                        with an introduction by_

                             H. L. MENCKEN

                               _New York_

                             ALFRED A. KNOPF

               COPYRIGHT, 1918, BY ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC.

            _Pocket Book Edition, Published September, 1923

                    Second Printing, November, 1924_

      _Set up, electrotyped, and printed by the Vail-Ballou Press,

                           Binghamton, N. Y._

     _Paper manufactured by W. C. Hamilton & Sons, Miquon, Pa., and

            furnished by W. F. Etherington & Co., New York._

             MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CONTENTS

                                            PAGE

    INTRODUCTION BY H. L. MENCKEN              7

    AUTHOR'S PREFACE                          37

    THE ANTICHRIST                            41

INTRODUCTION

Save for his raucous, rhapsodical autobiography, "Ecce Homo," "The

Antichrist" is the last thing that Nietzsche ever wrote, and so it may

be accepted as a statement of some of his most salient ideas in their

final form. Notes for it had been accumulating for years and it was to

have constituted the first volume of his long-projected _magnum opus_,

"The Will to Power." His full plan for this work, as originally drawn

up, was as follows:

  Vol.   I.  The Antichrist: an Attempt at a Criticism of Christianity.

  Vol.  II.  The Free Spirit: a Criticism of Philosophy as a Nihilistic

             Movement.

  Vol. III.  The Immoralist: a Criticism of Morality, the Most Fatal

             Form of Ignorance.

  Vol.  IV.  Dionysus: the Philosophy of Eternal Recurrence.

The first sketches for "The Will to Power" were made in 1884, soon after

the publication of the first three parts of "Thus Spake Zarathustra,"

and thereafter, for four years, Nietzsche piled up notes. They were

written at all the places he visited on his endless travels in search of

health--at Nice, at Venice, at Sils-Maria in the Engadine (for long his

favourite resort), at Cannobio, at Zuerich, at Genoa, at Chur, at

Leipzig. Several times his work was interrupted by other books, first by

"Beyond Good and Evil," then by "The Genealogy of Morals" (written in

twenty days), then by his Wagner pamphlets. Almost as often he changed

his plan. Once he decided to expand "The Will to Power" to ten volumes,

with "An Attempt at a New Interpretation of the World" as a general

sub-title. Again he adopted the sub-title of "An Interpretation of All

That Happens." Finally, he hit upon "An Attempt at a Transvaluation of

All Values," and went back to four volumes, though with a number of

changes in their arrangement. In September, 1888, he began actual work

upon the first volume, and before the end of the month it was completed.

The Summer had been one of almost hysterical creative activity. Since

the middle of June he had written two other small books, "The Case of

Wagner" and "The Twilight of the Idols," and before the end of the year

he was destined to write "Ecce Homo." Some time during December his

health began to fail rapidly, and soon after the New Year he was

helpless. Thereafter he wrote no more.

The Wagner diatribe and "The Twilight of the Idols" were published

immediately, but "The Antichrist" did not get into type until 1895. I

suspect that the delay was due to the influence of the philosopher's

sister, Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche, an intelligent and ardent but by no

means uniformly judicious propagandist of his ideas. During his dark

days of neglect and misunderstanding, when even family and friends kept

aloof, Frau Foerster-Nietzsche went with him farther than any other, but

there were bounds beyond which she, also, hesitated to go, and those

bounds were marked by crosses. One notes, in her biography of him--a

useful but not always accurate work--an evident desire to purge him of

the accusation of mocking at sacred things. He had, she says, great

admiration for "the elevating effect of Christianity ... upon the weak

and ailing," and "a real liking for sincere, pious Christians," and "a

tender love for the Founder of Christianity." All his wrath, she

continues, was reserved for "St. Paul and his like," who perverted the

Beatitudes, which Christ intended for the lowly only, into a universal

religion which made war upon aristocratic values. Here, obviously, one

is addressed by an interpreter who cannot forget that she is the

daughter of a Lutheran pastor and the grand-daughter of two others; a

touch of conscience gets into her reading of "The Antichrist." She even

hints that the text may have been garbled, after the author's collapse,

by some more sinister heretic. There is not the slightest reason to

believe that any such garbling ever took place, nor is there any

evidence that their common heritage of piety rested upon the brother as

heavily as it rested upon the sister. On the contrary, it must be

manifest that Nietzsche, in this book, intended to attack Christianity

headlong and with all arms, that for all his rapid writing he put the

utmost care into it, and that he wanted it to be printed exactly as it

stands. The ideas in it were anything but new to him when he set them

down. He had been developing them since the days of his beginning. You

will find some of them, clearly recognizable, in the first book he ever

wrote, "The Birth of Tragedy." You will find the most important of all

of them--the conception of Christianity as _ressentiment_--set forth at

length in the first part of "The Genealogy of Morals," published under

his own supervision in 1887. And the rest are scattered through the

whole vast mass of his notes, sometimes as mere questionings but often

worked out very carefully. Moreover, let it not be forgotten that it was

Wagner's yielding to Christian sentimentality in "Parsifal" that

transformed Nietzsche from the first among his literary advocates into

the most bitter of his opponents. He could forgive every other sort of

mountebankery, but not that. "In me," he once said, "the Christianity of

my forbears reaches its logical conclusion. In me the stern intellectual

conscience that Christianity fosters and makes paramount turns _against_

Christianity. In me Christianity ... devours itself."

In truth, the present philippic is as necessary to the completeness of

the whole of Nietzsche's system as the keystone is to the arch. All the

curves of his speculation lead up to it. What he flung himself against,

from beginning to end of his days of writing, was always, in the last

analysis, Christianity in some form or other--Christianity as a system

of practical ethics, Christianity as a political code, Christianity as

metaphysics, Christianity as a gauge of the truth. It would be

difficult to think of any intellectual enterprise on his long list that

did not, more or less directly and clearly, relate itself to this master

enterprise of them all. It was as if his apostasy from the

faith of his fathers, filling him with the fiery zeal of the convert,

and particularly of the convert to heresy, had blinded him to every

other element in the gigantic self-delusion of civilized man. The will

to power was his answer to Christianity's affectation of humility and

self-sacrifice; eternal recurrence was his mocking criticism of

Christian optimism and millennialism; the superman was his candidate for

the place of the Christian ideal of the "good" man, prudently abased

before the throne of God. The things he chiefly argued for were

anti-Christian things--the abandonment of the purely moral view of life,

the rehabilitation of instinct, the dethronement of weakness and

timidity as ideals, the renunciation of the whole hocus-pocus of

dogmatic religion, the extermination of false aristocracies (of the

priest, of the politician, of the plutocrat), the revival of the

healthy, lordly "innocence" that was Greek. If he was anything in a

word, Nietzsche was a Greek born two thousand years too late. His

dreams were thoroughly Hellenic; his whole manner of thinking was

Hellenic; his peculiar errors were Hellenic no less. But his Hellenism,

I need not add, was anything but the pale neo-Platonism that has run

like a thread through the thinking of the Western world since the days

of the Christian Fathers. From Plato, to be sure, he got what all of us

must get, but his real forefather was Heraclitus. It is in Heraclitus

that one finds the germ of his primary view of the universe--a view, to

wit, that sees it, not as moral phenomenon, but as mere aesthetic

representation. The God that Nietzsche imagined, in the end, was not far

from the God that such an artist as Joseph Conrad imagines--a supreme

craftsman, ever experimenting, ever coming closer to an ideal balancing

of lines and forces, and yet always failing to work out the final

harmony.

The late war, awakening all the primitive racial fury of the Western

nations, and therewith all their ancient enthusiasm for religious taboos

and sanctions, naturally focused attention upon Nietzsche, as upon the

most daring and provocative of recent amateur theologians. The Germans,

with their characteristic tendency to explain their every act in terms

as realistic and unpleasant as possible, appear to have mauled him in a

belated and unexpected embrace, to the horror, I daresay, of the Kaiser,

and perhaps to the even greater horror of Nietzsche's own ghost. The

folks of Anglo-Saxondom, with their equally characteristic tendency to

explain all their enterprises romantically, simultaneously set him up as

the Antichrist he no doubt secretly longed to be. The result was a great

deal of misrepresentation and misunderstanding of him. From the pulpits

of the allied countries, and particularly from those of England and the

United States, a horde of patriotic ecclesiastics denounced him in

extravagant terms as the author of all the horrors of the time, and in

the newspapers, until the Kaiser was elected sole bugaboo, he shared the

honors of that office with von Hindenburg, the Crown Prince, Capt.

Boy-Ed, von Bernstorff and von Tirpitz. Most of this denunciation, of

course, was frankly idiotic--the naive pishposh of suburban Methodists,

notoriety-seeking college professors, almost illiterate editorial

writers, and other such numskulls. In much of it, including not a few

official hymns of hate, Nietzsche was gravely discovered to be the

teacher of such spokesmen of the extremest sort of German nationalism

as von Bernhardi and von Treitschke--which was just as intelligent as

making George Bernard Shaw the mentor of Lloyd-George. In other solemn

pronunciamentoes he was credited with being philosophically responsible

for various imaginary crimes of the enemy--the wholesale slaughter or

mutilation of prisoners of war, the deliberate burning down of Red Cross

hospitals, the utilization of the corpses of the slain for soap-making.

I amused myself, in those gaudy days, by collecting newspaper clippings

to this general effect, and later on I shall probably publish a digest

of them, as a contribution to the study of war hysteria. The thing went

to unbelievable lengths. On the strength of the fact that I had

published a book on Nietzsche in 1906, six years after his death, I was

called upon by agents of the Department of Justice, elaborately

outfitted with badges, to meet the charge that I was an intimate

associate and agent of "the German monster, Nietzsky." I quote the

official _proces verbal_, an indignant but often misspelled document.

Alas, poor Nietzsche! After all his laborious efforts to prove that he

was not a German, but a Pole--even after his heroic readiness, via

anti-anti-Semitism, to meet the deduction that, if a Pole, then probably

also a Jew!

But under all this alarmed and preposterous tosh there was at least a

sound instinct, and that was the instinct which recognized Nietzsche as

the most eloquent, pertinacious and effective of all the critics of the

philosophy to which the Allies against Germany stood committed, and on

the strength of which, at all events in theory, the United States had

engaged itself in the war. He was not, in point of fact, involved with

the visible enemy, save in remote and transient ways; the German,

officially, remained the most ardent of Christians during the war and

became a democrat at its close. But he was plainly a foe of democracy in

all its forms, political, religious and epistemological, and what is

worse, his opposition was set forth in terms that were not only

extraordinarily penetrating and devastating, but also uncommonly

offensive. It was thus quite natural that he should have aroused a

degree of indignation verging upon the pathological in the two countries

that had planted themselves upon the democratic platform most boldly,

and that felt it most shaky, one may add, under their feet. I daresay

that Nietzsche, had he been alive, would have got a lot of satisfaction

out of the execration thus heaped upon him, not only because, being a

vain fellow, he enjoyed execration as a tribute to his general

singularity, and hence to his superiority, but also and more importantly

because, being no mean psychologist, he would have recognized the

disconcerting doubts underlying it. If Nietzsche's criticism of

democracy were as ignorant and empty, say, as the average evangelical

clergyman's criticism of Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection, then

the advocates of democracy could afford to dismiss it as loftily as the

Darwinians dismiss the blather of the holy clerks. And if his attack

upon Christianity were mere sound and fury, signifying nothing, then

there would be no call for anathemas from the sacred desk. But these

onslaughts, in point of fact, have behind them a tremendous learning and

a great deal of point and plausibility--there are, in brief, bullets in

the gun, teeth in the tiger,--and so it is no wonder that they excite

the ire of men who hold, as a primary article of belief, that their

acceptance would destroy civilization, darken the sun, and bring Jahveh

to sobs upon His Throne.

But in all this justifiable fear, of course, there remains a false

assumption, and that is the assumption that Nietzsche proposed to

destroy Christianity altogether, and so rob the plain people of the

world of their virtue, their spiritual consolations, and their hope of

heaven. Nothing could be more untrue. The fact is that Nietzsche had no

interest whatever in the delusions of the plain people--that is,

intrinsically. It seemed to him of small moment _what_ they believed, so

long as it was safely imbecile. What he stood against was not their

beliefs, but the elevation of those beliefs, by any sort of democratic

process, to the dignity of a state philosophy--what he feared most was

the pollution and crippling of the superior minority by intellectual

disease from below. His plain aim in "The Antichrist" was to combat that

menace by completing the work begun, on the one hand, by Darwin and the

other evolutionist philosophers, and, on the other hand, by German

historians and philologians. The net effect of this earlier attack, in

the eighties, had been the collapse of Christian theology as a serious

concern of educated men. The mob, it must be obvious, was very little

shaken; even to this day it has not put off its belief in the essential

Christian doctrines. But the _intelligentsia_, by 1885, had been pretty

well convinced. No man of sound information, at the time Nietzsche

planned "The Antichrist," actually believed that the world was created

in seven days, or that its fauna was once overwhelmed by a flood as a

penalty for the sins of man, or that Noah saved the boa constrictor, the

prairie dog and the _pediculus capitis_ by taking a pair of each into

the ark, or that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, or that a

fragment of the True Cross could cure hydrophobia. Such notions, still

almost universally prevalent in Christendom a century before, were now

confined to the great body of ignorant and credulous men--that is, to

ninety-five or ninety-six percent. of the race. For a man of the

superior minority to subscribe to one of them publicly was already

sufficient to set him off as one in imminent need of psychiatrical

attention. Belief in them had become a mark of inferiority, like the

allied belief in madstones, magic and apparitions.

But though the theology of Christianity had thus sunk to the lowly

estate of a mere delusion of the rabble, propagated on that level by the

ancient caste of sacerdotal parasites, the ethics of Christianity

continued to enjoy the utmost acceptance, and perhaps even more

acceptance than ever before. It seemed to be generally felt, in fact,

that they simply _must_ be saved from the wreck--that the world would

vanish into chaos if they went the way of the revelations supporting

them. In this fear a great many judicious men joined, and so there arose

what was, in essence, an absolutely new Christian cult--a cult, to wit,

purged of all the supernaturalism superimposed upon the older cult by

generations of theologians, and harking back to what was conceived to be

the pure ethical doctrine of Jesus. This cult still flourishes;

Protestantism tends to become identical with it; it invades Catholicism

as Modernism; it is supported by great numbers of men whose intelligence

is manifest and whose sincerity is not open to question. Even Nietzsche

himself yielded to it in weak moments, as you will discover on examining

his somewhat laborious effort to make Paul the villain of Christian

theology, and Jesus no more than an innocent bystander. But this

sentimental yielding never went far enough to distract his attention for

long from his main idea, which was this: that Christian ethics were

quite as dubious, at bottom, as Christian theology--that they were

founded, just as surely as such childish fables as the story of Jonah

and the whale, upon the peculiar prejudices and credulities, the special

desires and appetites, of inferior men--that they warred upon the best

interests of men of a better sort quite as unmistakably as the most

extravagant of objective superstitions. In brief, what he saw in

Christian ethics, under all the poetry and all the fine show of altruism

and all the theoretical benefits therein, was a democratic effort to

curb the egoism of the strong--a conspiracy of the _chandala_ against

the free functioning of their superiors, nay, against the free progress

of mankind. This theory is the thing he exposes in "The Antichrist,"

bringing to the business his amazingly chromatic and exigent eloquence

at its finest flower. This is the "conspiracy" he sets forth in all the

panoply of his characteristic italics, dashes, _sforzando_ interjections

and exclamation points.

Well, an idea is an idea. The present one may be right and it may be

wrong. One thing is quite certain: that no progress will be made against

it by denouncing it as merely immoral. If it is ever laid at all, it

must be laid evidentially, logically. The notion to the contrary is

thoroughly democratic; the mob is the most ruthless of tyrants; it is

always in a democratic society that heresy and felony tend to be most

constantly confused. One hears without surprise of a Bismarck

philosophizing placidly (at least in his old age) upon the delusion of

Socialism and of a Frederick the Great playing the hose of his cynicism

upon the absolutism that was almost identical with his own person, but

men in the mass never brook the destructive discussion of their

fundamental beliefs, and that impatience is naturally most evident in

those societies in which men in the mass are most influential. Democracy

and free speech are not facets of one gem; democracy and free speech are

eternal enemies. But in any battle between an institution and an idea,

the idea, in the long run, has the better of it. Here I do not venture

into the absurdity of arguing that, as the world wags on, the truth

always survives. I believe nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, it

seems to me that an idea that happens to be true--or, more exactly, as

near to truth as any human idea can be, and yet remain generally

intelligible--it seems to me that such an idea carries a special and

often fatal handicap. The majority of men prefer delusion to truth. It

soothes. It is easy to grasp. Above all, it fits more snugly than the

truth into a universe of false appearances--of complex and irrational

phenomena, defectively grasped. But though an idea that is true is thus

not likely to prevail, an idea that is _attacked_ enjoys a great

advantage. The evidence behind it is now supported by sympathy, the

sporting instinct, sentimentality--and sentimentality is as powerful as

an army with banners. One never hears of a martyr in history whose

notions are seriously disputed today. The forgotten ideas are those of

the men who put them forward soberly and quietly, hoping fatuously that

they would conquer by the force of their truth; these are the ideas that

we now struggle to rediscover. Had Nietzsche lived to be burned at the

stake by outraged Mississippi Methodists, it would have been a glorious

day for his doctrines. As it is, they are helped on their way every time

they are denounced as immoral and against God. The war brought down upon

them the maledictions of vast herds of right-thinking men. And now "The

Antichrist," after fifteen years of neglect, is being reprinted....

One imagines the author, a sardonic wraith, snickering somewhat sadly

over the fact. His shade, wherever it suffers, is favoured in these days

by many such consolations, some of them of much greater horsepower.

Think of the facts and arguments, even the underlying theories and

attitudes, that have been borrowed from him, consciously and

unconsciously, by the foes of Bolshevism during these last thrilling

years! The face of democracy, suddenly seen hideously close, has scared

the guardians of the reigning plutocracy half to death, and they have

gone to the devil himself for aid. Southern Senators, almost illiterate

men, have mixed his acids with well water and spouted them like

affrighted geysers, not knowing what they did. Nor are they the first to

borrow from him. Years ago I called attention to the debt incurred with

characteristic forgetfulness of obligation by the late Theodore

Roosevelt, in "The Strenuous Life" and elsewhere. Roosevelt, a typical

apologist for the existing order, adeptly dragging a herring across the

trail whenever it was menaced, yet managed to delude the native boobery,

at least until toward the end, into accepting him as a fiery exponent of

pure democracy. Perhaps he even fooled himself; charlatans usually do

so soon or late. A study of Nietzsche reveals the sources of much that

was honest in him, and exposes the hollowness of much that was sham.

Nietzsche, an infinitely harder and more courageous intellect, was

incapable of any such confusion of ideas; he seldom allowed

sentimentality to turn him from the glaring fact. What is called

Bolshevism today he saw clearly a generation ago and described for what

it was and is--democracy in another aspect, the old _ressentiment_ of the

lower orders in free function once more. Socialism, Puritanism,

Philistinism, Christianity--he saw them all as allotropic forms of

democracy, as variations upon the endless struggle of quantity against

quality, of the weak and timorous against the strong and enterprising,

of the botched against the fit. The world needed a staggering

exaggeration to make it see even half of the truth. It trembles today as

it trembled during the French Revolution. Perhaps it would tremble less

if it could combat the monster with a clearer conscience and less burden

of compromising theory--if it could launch its forces frankly at the

fundamental doctrine, and not merely employ them to police the

transient orgy.

Nietzsche, in the long run, may help it toward that greater honesty. His

notions, propagated by cuttings from cuttings from cuttings, may

conceivably prepare the way for a sounder, more healthful theory of

society and of the state, and so free human progress from the

stupidities which now hamper it, and men of true vision from the

despairs which now sicken them. I say it is conceivable, but I doubt

that it is probable. The soul and the belly of mankind are too evenly

balanced; it is not likely that the belly will ever put away its hunger

or forget its power. Here, perhaps, there is an example of the eternal

recurrence that Nietzsche was fond of mulling over in his blacker moods.

We are in the midst of one of the perennial risings of the lower orders.

It got under way long before any of the current Bolshevist demons was

born; it was given its long, secure start by the intolerable tyranny of

the plutocracy--the end product of the Eighteenth Century revolt against

the old aristocracy. It found resistance suddenly slackened by civil war

within the plutocracy itself--one gang of traders falling upon another

gang, to the tune of vast hymn-singing and yells to God. Perhaps it has

already passed its apogee; the plutocracy, chastened, shows signs of a

new solidarity; the wheel continues to swing 'round. But this combat

between proletariat and plutocracy is, after all, itself a civil war.

Two inferiorities struggle for the privilege of polluting the world.

What actual difference does it make to a civilized man, when there is a

steel strike, whether the workmen win or the mill-owners win? The

conflict can interest him only as spectacle, as the conflict between

Bonaparte and the old order in Europe interested Goethe and Beethoven.

The victory, whichever way it goes, will simply bring chaos nearer, and

so set the stage for a genuine revolution later on, with (let us hope) a

new feudalism or something better coming out of it, and a new Thirteenth

Century at dawn. This seems to be the slow, costly way of the worst of

habitable worlds.

In the present case my money is laid upon the plutocracy. It will win

because it will be able, in the long run, to enlist the finer

intelligences. The mob and its maudlin causes attract only

sentimentalists and scoundrels, chiefly the latter. Politics, under a

democracy, reduces itself to a mere struggle for office by flatterers

of the proletariat; even when a superior man prevails at that disgusting

game he must prevail at the cost of his self-respect. Not many superior

men make the attempt. The average great captain of the rabble, when he

is not simply a weeper over irremediable wrongs, is a hypocrite so far

gone that he is unconscious of his own hypocrisy--a slimy fellow,

offensive to the nose. The plutocracy can recruit measurably more

respectable janissaries, if only because it can make self-interest less

obviously costly to _amour propre_. Its defect and its weakness lie in

the fact that it is still too young to have acquired dignity. But lately

sprung from the mob it now preys upon, it yet shows some of the habits

of mind of that mob: it is blatant, stupid, ignorant, lacking in all

delicate instinct and governmental finesse. Above all, it remains

somewhat heavily moral. One seldom finds it undertaking one of its

characteristic imbecilities without offering a sonorous moral reason; it

spends almost as much to support the Y. M. C. A., vice-crusading,

Prohibition and other such puerilities as it spends upon Congressmen,

strike-breakers, gun-men, kept patriots and newspapers. In England the

case is even worse. It is almost impossible to find a wealthy industrial

over there who is not also an eminent non-conformist layman, and even

among financiers there are praying brothers. On the Continent, the day

is saved by the fact that the plutocracy tends to become more and more

Jewish. Here the intellectual cynicism of the Jew almost counterbalances

his social unpleasantness. If he is destined to lead the plutocracy of

the world out of Little Bethel he will fail, of course, to turn it into

an aristocracy--_i. e._, a caste of gentlemen--, but he will at least

make it clever, and hence worthy of consideration. The case against the

Jews is long and damning; it would justify ten thousand times as many

pogroms as now go on in the world. But whenever you find a

Davidsbuendlerschaft making practise against the Philistines, there you

will find a Jew laying on. Maybe it was this fact that caused Nietzsche

to speak up for the children of Israel quite as often as he spoke

against them. He was not blind to their faults, but when he set them

beside Christians he could not deny their general superiority. Perhaps

in America and England, as on the Continent, the increasing Jewishness

of the plutocracy, while cutting it off from all chance of ever

developing into an aristocracy, will yet lift it to such a dignity that

it will at least deserve a certain grudging respect.

But even so, it will remain in a sort of half-world, midway between the

gutter and the stars. Above it will still stand the small group of men

that constitutes the permanent aristocracy of the race--the men of

imagination and high purpose, the makers of genuine progress, the brave

and ardent spirits, above all petty fears and discontents and above all

petty hopes and ideals no less. There were heroes before Agamemnon;

there will be Bachs after Johann Sebastian. And beneath the Judaized

plutocracy, the sublimated _bourgeoisie_, there the immemorial

proletariat, I venture to guess, will roar on, endlessly tortured by its

vain hatreds and envies, stampeded and made to tremble by its ancient

superstitions, prodded and made miserable by its sordid and degrading

hopes. It seems to me very likely that, in this proletariat,

Christianity will continue to survive. It is nonsense, true enough, but

it is sweet. Nietzsche, denouncing its dangers as a poison, almost falls

into the error of denying it its undoubtedly sugary smack. Of all the

religions ever devised by the great practical jokers of the race, this

is the one that offers most for the least money, so to speak, to the

inferior man. It starts out by denying his inferiority in plain terms:

_all_ men are equal in the sight of God. It ends by erecting that

inferiority into a sort of actual superiority: it is a merit to be

stupid, and miserable, and sorely put upon--of such are the celestial

elect. Not all the eloquence of a million Nietzsches, nor all the

painful marshalling of evidence of a million Darwins and Harnacks, will

ever empty that great consolation of its allure. The most they can ever

accomplish is to make the superior orders of men acutely conscious of

the exact nature of it, and so give them armament against the contagion.

This is going on; this is being done. I think that "The Antichrist" has

a useful place in that enterprise. It is strident, it is often

extravagant, it is, to many sensitive men, in the worst of possible

taste, but at bottom it is enormously apt and effective--and on the

surface it is undoubtedly a good show. One somehow enjoys, with the

malice that is native to man, the spectacle of anathemas batted back; it

is refreshing to see the pitchfork employed against gentlemen who have

doomed such innumerable caravans to hell. In Nietzsche they found, after

many long years, a foeman worthy of them--not a mere fancy swordsman

like Voltaire, or a mob orator like Tom Paine, or a pedant like the

heretics of exegesis, but a gladiator armed with steel and armoured with

steel, and showing all the ferocious gusto of a mediaeval bishop. It is

a pity that Holy Church has no process for the elevation of demons, like

its process for the canonization of saints. There must be a long roll of

black miracles to the discredit of the Accursed Friedrich--sinners

purged of conscience and made happy in their sinning, clerics shaken in

their theology by visions of a new and better holy city, the strong made

to exult, the weak robbed of their old sad romance. It would be a

pleasure to see the _Advocatus Diaboli_ turn from the table of the

prosecution to the table of the defence, and move in solemn form for the

damnation of the Naumburg hobgoblin....

Of all Nietzsche's books, "The Antichrist" comes nearest to

conventionality in form. It presents a connected argument with very few

interludes, and has a beginning, a middle and an end. Most of his works

are in the form of collections of apothegms, and sometimes the subject

changes on every second page. This fact constitutes one of the counts in

the orthodox indictment of him: it is cited as proof that his capacity

for consecutive thought was limited, and that he was thus deficient

mentally, and perhaps a downright moron. The argument, it must be

obvious, is fundamentally nonsensical. What deceives the professors is

the traditional prolixity of philosophers. Because the average

philosophical writer, when he essays to expose his ideas, makes such

inordinate drafts upon the parts of speech that the dictionary is almost

emptied these defective observers jump to the conclusion that his

intrinsic notions are of corresponding weight. This is not unseldom

quite untrue. What makes philosophy so garrulous is not the profundity

of philosophers, but their lack of art; they are like physicians who

sought to cure a slight hyperacidity by giving the patient a carload of

burned oyster-shells to eat. There is, too, the endless poll-parrotting

that goes on: each new philosopher must prove his learning by

laboriously rehearsing the ideas of all previous philosophers....

Nietzsche avoided both faults. He always assumed that his readers knew

the books, and that it was thus unnecessary to rewrite them. And, having

an idea that seemed to him to be novel and original, he stated it in as

few words as possible, and then shut down. Sometimes he got it into a

hundred words; sometimes it took a thousand; now and then, as in the

present case, he developed a series of related ideas into a connected

book. But he never wrote a word too many. He never pumped up an idea to

make it appear bigger than it actually was. The pedagogues, alas, are

not accustomed to that sort of writing in serious fields. They resent

it, and sometimes they even try to improve it. There exists, in fact, a

huge and solemn tome on Nietzsche by a learned man of America in which

all of his brilliancy is painfully translated into the windy phrases of

the seminaries. The tome is satisfactorily ponderous, but the meat of

the cocoanut is left out: there is actually no discussion of the

Nietzschean view of Christianity!... Always Nietzsche daunts the

pedants. He employed too few words for them--and he had too many ideas.

       *       *       *       *       *

The present translation of "The Antichrist" is published by agreement

with Dr. Oscar Levy, editor of the English edition of Nietzsche. There

are two earlier translations, one by Thomas Common and the other by

Anthony M. Ludovici. That of Mr. Common follows the text very closely,

and thus occasionally shows some essentially German turns of phrase;

that of Mr. Ludovici is more fluent but rather less exact. I do not

offer my own version on the plea that either of these is useless; on the

contrary, I cheerfully acknowledge that they have much merit, and that

they helped me at almost every line. I began this new Englishing of the

book, not in any hope of supplanting them, and surely not with any

notion of meeting a great public need, but simply as a private amusement

in troubled days. But as I got on with it I began to see ways of putting

some flavour of Nietzsche's peculiar style into the English, and so

amusement turned into a more or less serious labour. The result, of

course, is far from satisfactory, but it at least represents a very

diligent attempt. Nietzsche, always under the influence of French

models, wrote a German that differs materially from any other German

that I know. It is more nervous, more varied, more rapid in tempo; it

runs to more effective climaxes; it is never stodgy. His marks begin to

show upon the writing of the younger Germans of today. They are getting

away from the old thunderous manner, with its long sentences and its

tedious grammatical complexities. In the course of time, I daresay, they

will develop a German almost as clear as French and almost as colourful

and resilient as English.

I owe thanks to Dr. Levy for his _imprimatur_, to Mr. Theodor Hemberger

for criticism, and to Messrs. Common and Ludovici for showing me the way

around many a difficulty.

                        H. L. MENCKEN.

PREFACE

This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is

yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my

"Zarathustra": how _could_ I confound myself with those who are now

sprouting ears?--First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men

are born posthumously.

The conditions under which any one understands me, and _necessarily_

understands me--I know them only too well. Even to endure my

seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the

verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops--and

to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as

_beneath_ him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the

truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him.... He must

have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the

courage for; the courage for the _forbidden_; predestination for the

labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music.

New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have

hitherto remained unheard. _And_ the will to economize in the grand

manner--to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm.... Reverence for

self; love of self; absolute freedom of self....

Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my

readers foreordained: of what account are the _rest_?--The rest are

merely humanity.--One must make one's self superior to humanity, in

power, in _loftiness_ of soul,--in contempt.

                        FRIEDRICH W. NIETZSCHE.

THE ANTICHRIST

1.

--Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans--we know well

enough how remote our place is. "Neither by land nor by water will you

find the road to the Hyperboreans": even Pindar,[1] in his day, knew

_that_ much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond

_death_--_our_ life, _our_ happiness.... We have discovered that

happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of

years in the labyrinth. Who _else_ has found it?--The man of today?--"I

don't know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn't know

either the way out or the way in"--so sighs the man of today.... _This_

is the sort of modernity that made us ill,--we sickened on lazy peace,

cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern Yea and

Nay. This tolerance and _largeur_ of the heart that "forgives"

everything because it "understands" everything is a sirocco to us.

Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such

south-winds!... We were brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor

others; but we were a long time finding out _where_ to direct our

courage. We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. _Our_ fate--it was

the fulness, the tension, the _storing up_ of powers. We thirsted for

the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the

happiness of the weakling, from "resignation"... There was thunder in

our air; nature, as we embodied it, became overcast--_for we had not yet

found the way_. The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight

line, a _goal_....

[1] _Cf._ the tenth Pythian ode. See also the fourth book of Herodotus.

The Hyperboreans were a mythical people beyond the Rhipaean mountains,

in the far North. They enjoyed unbroken happiness and perpetual youth.

2.

What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to

power, power itself, in man.

What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness?--The feeling that power _increases_--that resistance

is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power; _not_ peace at any price, but war;

_not_ virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, _virtu_,

virtue free of moral acid).

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of _our_ charity.

And one should help them to it.

What is more harmful than any vice?--Practical sympathy for the botched

and the weak--Christianity....

3.

The problem that I set here is not what shall replace mankind in the

order of living creatures (--man is an end--): but what type of man must

be _bred_, must be _willed_, as being the most valuable, the most worthy

of life, the most secure guarantee of the future.

This more valuable type has appeared often enough in the past: but

always as a happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately

_willed_. Very often it has been precisely the most feared; hitherto it

has been almost _the_ terror of terrors;--and out of that terror the

contrary type has been willed, cultivated and _attained_: the domestic

animal, the herd animal, the sick brute-man--the Christian....

4.

Mankind surely does _not_ represent an evolution toward a better or

stronger or higher level, as progress is now understood. This "progress"

is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea. The European of

today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the

Renaissance; the process of evolution does _not_ necessarily mean

elevation, enhancement, strengthening.

True enough, it succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various

parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in

these cases a _higher_ type certainly manifests itself; something which,

compared to mankind in the mass, appears as a sort of superman. Such

happy strokes of high success have always been possible, and will remain

possible, perhaps, for all time to come. Even whole races, tribes and

nations may occasionally represent such lucky accidents.

5.

We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to

the death against this _higher_ type of man, it has put all the deepest

instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of

evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts--the strong man as

the typical reprobate, the "outcast among men." Christianity has taken

the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out

of _antagonism_ to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it

has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are

intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual

values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation. The most

lamentable example: the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his

intellect had been destroyed by original sin, whereas it was actually

destroyed by Christianity!--

6.

It is a painful and tragic spectacle that rises before me: I have drawn

back the curtain from the _rottenness_ of man. This word, in my mouth,

is at least free from one suspicion: that it involves a moral accusation

against humanity. It is used--and I wish to emphasize the fact

again--without any moral significance: and this is so far true that the

rottenness I speak of is most apparent to me precisely in those quarters

where there has been most aspiration, hitherto, toward "virtue" and

"godliness." As you probably surmise, I understand rottenness in the

sense of _decadence_: my argument is that all the values on which

mankind now fixes its highest aspirations are _decadence_-values.

I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its

instincts, when it chooses, when it _prefers_, what is injurious to it.

A history of the "higher feelings," the "ideals of humanity"--and it is

possible that I'll have to write it--would almost explain why man is so

degenerate. Life itself appears to me as an instinct for growth, for

survival, for the accumulation of forces, for _power_: whenever the will

to power fails there is disaster. My contention is that all the highest

values of humanity have been emptied of this will--that the values of

_decadence_, of _nihilism_, now prevail under the holiest names.

7.

Christianity is called the religion of _pity_.--Pity stands in

opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the

feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he

pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is

multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under

certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and

living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the

cause (--the case of the death of the Nazarene). This is the first view

of it; there is, however, a still more important one. If one measures

the effects of pity by the gravity of the reactions it sets up, its

character as a menace to life appears in a much clearer light. Pity

thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural

selection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on

the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining

life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a

gloomy and dubious aspect. Mankind has ventured to call pity a virtue

(--in every _superior_ moral system it appears as a weakness--); going

still further, it has been called _the_ virtue, the source and

foundation of all other virtues--but let us always bear in mind that

this was from the standpoint of a philosophy that was nihilistic, and

upon whose shield _the denial of life_ was inscribed. Schopenhauer was

right in this: that by means of pity life is denied, and made _worthy of

denial_--pity is the technic of nihilism. Let me repeat: this depressing

and contagious instinct stands against all those instincts which work

for the preservation and enhancement of life: in the role of _protector_

of the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of

_decadence_--pity persuades to extinction.... Of course, one doesn't say

"extinction": one says "the other world," or "God," or "the _true_

life," or Nirvana, salvation, blessedness.... This innocent rhetoric,

from the realm of religious-ethical balderdash, appears _a good deal

less innocent_ when one reflects upon the tendency that it conceals

beneath sublime words: the tendency to _destroy life_. Schopenhauer was

hostile to life: that is why pity appeared to him as a virtue....

Aristotle, as every one knows, saw in pity a sickly and dangerous state

of mind, the remedy for which was an occasional purgative: he regarded

tragedy as that purgative. The instinct of life should prompt us to seek

some means of puncturing any such pathological and dangerous

accumulation of pity as that appearing in Schopenhauer's case (and also,

alack, in that of our whole literary _decadence_, from St. Petersburg to

Paris, from Tolstoi to Wagner), that it may burst and be discharged....

Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than

Christian pity. To be the doctors _here_, to be unmerciful _here_, to

wield the knife _here_--all this is _our_ business, all this is _our_

sort of humanity, by this sign we are philosophers, we Hyperboreans!--

8.

It is necessary to say just _whom_ we regard as our antagonists:

theologians and all who have any theological blood in their veins--this

is our whole philosophy.... One must have faced that menace at close

hand, better still, one must have had experience of it directly and

almost succumbed to it, to realize that it is not to be taken lightly

(--the alleged free-thinking of our naturalists and physiologists seems

to me to be a joke--they have no passion about such things; they have

not suffered--). This poisoning goes a great deal further than most

people think: I find the arrogant habit of the theologian among all who

regard themselves as "idealists"--among all who, by virtue of a higher

point of departure, claim a right to rise above reality, and to look

upon it with suspicion.... The idealist, like the ecclesiastic, carries

all sorts of lofty concepts in his hand (--and not only in his hand!);

he launches them with benevolent contempt against "understanding," "the

senses," "honor," "good living," "science"; he sees such things as

_beneath_ him, as pernicious and seductive forces, on which "the soul"

soars as a pure thing-in-itself--as if humility, chastity, poverty, in a

word, _holiness_, had not already done much more damage to life than all

imaginable horrors and vices.... The pure soul is a pure lie.... So long

as the priest, that _professional_ denier, calumniator and poisoner of

life, is accepted as a _higher_ variety of man, there can be no answer

to the question, What _is_ truth? Truth has already been stood on its

head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its

representative....

9.

Upon this theological instinct I make war: I find the tracks of it

everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and

dishonourable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this

condition is called _faith_: in other words, closing one's eyes upon

one's self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable

falsehood. People erect a concept of morality, of virtue, of holiness

upon this false view of all things; they ground good conscience upon

faulty vision; they argue that no _other_ sort of vision has value any

more, once they have made theirs sacrosanct with the names of "God,"

"salvation" and "eternity." I unearth this theological instinct in all

directions: it is the most widespread and the most _subterranean_ form

of falsehood to be found on earth. Whatever a theologian regards as true

_must_ be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His

profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming

into honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence

of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the

concepts "true" and "false" are forced to change places: whatever is

most damaging to life is there called "true," and whatever exalts it,

intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is

there called "false."... When theologians, working through the

"consciences" of princes (or of peoples--), stretch out their hands for

_power_, there is never any doubt as to the fundamental issue: the will

to make an end, the _nihilistic_ will exerts that power....

10.

Among Germans I am immediately understood when I say that theological

blood is the ruin of philosophy. The Protestant pastor is the

grandfather of German philosophy; Protestantism itself is its _peccatum

originale_. Definition of Protestantism: hemiplegic paralysis of

Christianity--_and_ of reason.... One need only utter the words

"Tuebingen School" to get an understanding of what German philosophy is

at bottom--a very artful form of theology.... The Suabians are the best

liars in Germany; they lie innocently.... Why all the rejoicing over

the appearance of Kant that went through the learned world of Germany,

three-fourths of which is made up of the sons of preachers and

teachers--why the German conviction still echoing, that with Kant came a

change for the _better_? The theological instinct of German scholars

made them see clearly just _what_ had become possible again.... A

backstairs leading to the old ideal stood open; the concept of the "true

world," the concept of morality as the _essence_ of the world (--the two

most vicious errors that ever existed!), were once more, thanks to a

subtle and wily scepticism, if not actually demonstrable, then _at

least_ no longer _refutable_.... _Reason_, the _prerogative_ of reason,

does not go so far.... Out of reality there had been made "appearance";

an absolutely false world, that of being, had been turned into

reality.... The success of Kant is merely a theological success; he was,

like Luther and Leibnitz, but one more impediment to German integrity,

already far from steady.--

11.

A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be _our_ invention;

it must spring out of _our_ personal need and defence. In every other

case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life

_menaces_ it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the

concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue,"

"duty," "good for its own sake," goodness grounded upon impersonality or

a notion of universal validity--these are all chimeras, and in them one

finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life, the

Chinese spirit of Koenigsberg. Quite the contrary is demanded by the most

profound laws of self-preservation and of growth: to wit, that every man

find his _own_ virtue, his _own_ categorical imperative. A nation goes

to pieces when it confounds _its_ duty with the general concept of duty.

Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every

"impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction.--To

think that no one has thought of Kant's categorical imperative as

_dangerous to life_!... The theological instinct alone took it under

protection!--An action prompted by the life-instinct proves that it is a

_right_ action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it: and yet that

Nihilist, with his bowels of Christian dogmatism, regarded pleasure as

an _objection_.... What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think

and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire,

without pleasure--as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for

_decadence_, and no less for idiocy.... Kant became an idiot.--And such

a man was the contemporary of Goethe! This calamitous spinner of cobwebs

passed for _the_ German philosopher--still passes today!... I forbid

myself to say what I think of the Germans.... Didn't Kant see in the

French Revolution the transformation of the state from the inorganic

form to the _organic_? Didn't he ask himself if there was a single event

that could be explained save on the assumption of a moral faculty in

man, so that on the basis of it, "the tendency of mankind toward the

good" could be _explained_, once and for all time? Kant's answer: "That

is revolution." Instinct at fault in everything and anything, instinct

as a revolt against nature, German _decadence_ as a philosophy--_that is

Kant_!--

12.

I put aside a few sceptics, the types of decency in the history of

philosophy: the rest haven't the slightest conception of intellectual

integrity. They behave like women, all these great enthusiasts and

prodigies--they regard "beautiful feelings" as arguments, the "heaving

breast" as the bellows of divine inspiration, conviction as the

_criterion_ of truth. In the end, with "German" innocence, Kant tried to

give a scientific flavour to this form of corruption, this dearth of

intellectual conscience, by calling it "practical reason." He

deliberately invented a variety of reasons for use on occasions when it

was desirable not to trouble with reason--that is, when morality, when

the sublime command "thou shalt," was heard. When one recalls the fact

that, among all peoples, the philosopher is no more than a development

from the old type of priest, this inheritance from the priest, this

_fraud upon self_, ceases to be remarkable. When a man feels that he has

a divine mission, say to lift up, to save or to liberate mankind--when a

man feels the divine spark in his heart and believes that he is the

mouthpiece of supernatural imperatives--when such a mission inflames

him, it is only natural that he should stand beyond all merely

reasonable standards of judgment. He feels that he is _himself_

sanctified by this mission, that he is himself a type of a higher

order!... What has a priest to do with philosophy! He stands far above

it!--And hitherto the priest has _ruled_!--He has determined the meaning

of "true" and "not true"!...

13.

Let us not underestimate this fact: that _we

ourselves_, we free spirits, are already a "transvaluation of all

values," a _visualized_ declaration of war and victory against all the

old concepts of "true" and "not true." The most valuable intuitions are

the last to be attained; the most valuable of all are those which

determine _methods_. All the methods, all the principles of the

scientific spirit of today, were the targets for thousands of years of

the most profound contempt; if a man inclined to them he was excluded

from the society of "decent" people--he passed as "an enemy of God," as

a scoffer at the truth, as one "possessed." As a man of science, he

belonged to the Chandala[2].... We have had the whole pathetic stupidity

of mankind against us--their every notion of what the truth _ought_ to

be, of what the service of the truth _ought_ to be--their every "thou

shalt" was launched against us.... Our objectives, our methods, our

quiet, cautious, distrustful manner--all appeared to them as absolutely

discreditable and contemptible.--Looking back, one may almost ask one's

self with reason if it was not actually an _aesthetic_ sense that kept

men blind so long: what they demanded of the truth was picturesque

effectiveness, and of the learned a strong appeal to their senses. It

was our _modesty_ that stood out longest against their taste.... How

well they guessed that, these turkey-cocks of God!

[2] The lowest of the Hindu castes.

14.

We have unlearned something. We have become more modest in every way. We

no longer derive man from the "spirit," from the "godhead"; we have

dropped him back among the beasts. We regard him as the strongest of the

beasts because he is the craftiest; one of the results thereof is his

intellectuality. On the other hand, we guard ourselves against a conceit

which would assert itself even here: that man is the great second

thought in the process of organic evolution. He is, in truth, anything

but the crown of creation: beside him stand many other animals, all at

similar stages of development.... And even when we say that we say a bit

too much, for man, relatively speaking, is the most botched of all the

animals and the sickliest, and he has wandered the most dangerously from

his instincts--though for all that, to be sure, he remains the most

_interesting_!--As regards the lower animals, it was Descartes who first

had the really admirable daring to describe them as _machina_; the whole

of our physiology is directed toward proving the truth of this doctrine.

Moreover, it is illogical to set man apart, as Descartes did: what we

know of man today is limited precisely by the extent to which we have

regarded him, too, as a machine. Formerly we accorded to man, as his

inheritance from some higher order of beings, what was called "free

will"; now we have taken even this will from him, for the term no longer

describes anything that we can understand. The old word "will" now

connotes only a sort of result, an individual reaction, that follows

inevitably upon a series of partly discordant and partly harmonious

stimuli--the will no longer "acts," or "moves."... Formerly it was

thought that man's consciousness, his "spirit," offered evidence of his

high origin, his divinity. That he might be _perfected_, he was advised,

tortoise-like, to draw his senses in, to have no traffic with earthly

things, to shuffle off his mortal coil--then only the important part of

him, the "pure spirit," would remain. Here again we have thought out the

thing better: to us consciousness, or "the spirit," appears as a symptom

of a relative imperfection of the organism, as an experiment, a groping,

a misunderstanding, as an affliction which uses up nervous force

unnecessarily--we deny that anything can be done perfectly so long as it

is done consciously. The "pure spirit" is a piece of pure stupidity:

take away the nervous system and the senses, the so-called "mortal

shell," and _the rest is miscalculation_--that is all!...

15.

Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of

contact with actuality. It offers purely imaginary _causes_ ("God,"

"soul," "ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely

imaginary _effects_ ("sin," "salvation," "grace," "punishment,"

"forgiveness of sins"). Intercourse between imaginary _beings_ ("God,"

"spirits," "souls"); an imaginary _natural history_ (anthropocentric; a

total denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary

_psychology_ (misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable

or disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the

_nervus sympathicus_ with the help of the sign-language of

religio-ethical balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience,"

"temptation by the devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginary

_teleology_ (the "kingdom of God," "the last judgment," "eternal

life").--This purely _fictitious world_, greatly to its disadvantage, is

to be differentiated from the world of dreams; the latter at least

reflects reality, whereas the former falsifies it, cheapens it and

denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had been opposed to the concept

of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on the meaning of

"abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its sources in

hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than evidence of a

profound uneasiness in the presence of reality.... _This explains

everything._ Who alone has any reason for living his way out of reality?

The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must be a

_botched_ reality.... The preponderance of pains over pleasures is the

cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a preponderance

also supplies the formula for _decadence_....

16.

A criticism of the _Christian concept of God_ leads inevitably to the

same conclusion.--A nation that still believes in itself holds fast to

its own god. In him it does honour to the conditions which enable it to

survive, to its virtues--it projects its joy in itself, its feeling of

power, into a being to whom one may offer thanks. He who is rich will

give of his riches; a proud people need a god to whom they can make

_sacrifices_.... Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude.

A man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a

god.--Such a god must be able to work both benefits and injuries; he

must be able to play either friend or foe--he is wondered at for the

good he does as well as for the evil he does. But the castration,

against all nature, of such a god, making him a god of goodness alone,

would be contrary to human inclination. Mankind has just as much need

for an evil god as for a good god; it doesn't have to thank mere

tolerance and humanitarianism for its own existence.... What would be

the value of a god who knew nothing of anger, revenge, envy, scorn,

cunning, violence? who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous

_ardeurs_ of victory and of destruction? No one would understand such a

god: why should any one want him?--True enough, when a nation is on the

downward path, when it feels its belief in its own future, its hope of

freedom slipping from it, when it begins to see submission as a first

necessity and the virtues of submission as measures of self-preservation,

then it _must_ overhaul its god. He then becomes a hypocrite, timorous

and demure; he counsels "peace of soul," hate-no-more, leniency, "love"

of friend and foe. He moralizes endlessly; he creeps into every private

virtue; he becomes the god of every man; he becomes a private citizen, a

cosmopolitan.... Formerly he represented a people, the strength of a

people, everything aggressive and thirsty for power in the soul of a

people; now he is simply _the good god_.... The truth is that there is

no other alternative for gods: _either_ they are the will to power--in

which case they are national gods--_or_ incapacity for power--in which

case they have to be good....

17.

Wherever the will to power begins to decline, in whatever form, there is

always an accompanying decline physiologically, a _decadence_. The

divinity of this _decadence_, shorn of its masculine virtues and

passions, is converted perforce into a god of the physiologically

degraded, of the weak. Of course, they do not _call_ themselves the

weak; they call themselves "the good."... No hint is needed to indicate

the moments in history at which the dualistic fiction of a good and an

evil god first became possible. The same instinct which prompts the

inferior to reduce their own god to "goodness-in-itself" also prompts

them to eliminate all good qualities from the god of their superiors;

they make revenge on their masters by making a _devil_ of the latter's

god.--The _good_ god, and the devil like him--both are abortions of

_decadence_.--How can we be so tolerant of the naivete of Christian

theologians as to join in their doctrine that the evolution of the

concept of god from "the god of Israel," the god of a people, to the

Christian god, the essence of all goodness, is to be described as

_progress_?--But even Renan does this. As if Renan had a right to be

naive! The contrary actually stares one in the face. When everything

necessary to _ascending_ life; when all that is strong, courageous,

masterful and proud has been eliminated from the concept of a god; when

he has sunk step by step to the level of a staff for the weary, a

sheet-anchor for the drowning; when he becomes the poor man's god, the

sinner's god, the invalid's god _par excellence_, and the attribute of

"saviour" or "redeemer" remains as the one essential attribute of

divinity--just _what_ is the significance of such a metamorphosis?

what does such a _reduction_ of the godhead imply?--To be

sure, the "kingdom of God" has thus grown larger. Formerly he had only

his own people, his "chosen" people. But since then he has gone

wandering, like his people themselves, into foreign parts; he has given

up settling down quietly anywhere; finally he has come to feel at home

everywhere, and is the great cosmopolitan--until now he has the "great

majority" on his side, and half the earth. But this god of the "great

majority," this democrat among gods, has not become a proud heathen god:

on the contrary, he remains a Jew, he remains a god in a corner, a god

of all the dark nooks and crevices, of all the noisesome quarters of the

world!... His earthly kingdom, now as always, is a kingdom of the

underworld, a _souterrain_ kingdom, a ghetto kingdom.... And he himself

is so pale, so weak, so _decadent_.... Even the palest of the pale are

able to master him--messieurs the metaphysicians, those albinos of the

intellect. They spun their webs around him for so long that finally he

was hypnotized, and began to spin himself, and became another

metaphysician. Thereafter he resumed once more his old business of

spinning the world out of his inmost being _sub specie Spinozae_;

thereafter he became ever thinner and paler--became the "ideal," became

"pure spirit," became "the absolute," became "the thing-in-itself."...

_The collapse of a god_: he became a "thing-in-itself."

18.

The Christian concept of a god--the god as the patron of the sick, the

god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit--is one of the most

corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably

touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God

degenerated into the _contradiction of life_. Instead of being its

transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on

nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander

upon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In him

nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy!...

19.

The fact that the strong races of northern Europe did not repudiate this

Christian god does little credit to their gift for religion--and not

much more to their taste. They ought to have been able to make an end of

such a moribund and worn-out product of the _decadence_. A curse lies

upon them because they were not equal to it; they made illness,

decrepitude and contradiction a part of their instincts--and since then

they have not managed to _create_ any more gods. Two thousand years have

come and gone--and not a single new god! Instead, there still exists,

and as if by some intrinsic right,--as if he were the _ultimatum_ and

_maximum_ of the power to create gods, of the _creator spiritus_ in

mankind--this pitiful god of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid

image of decay, conjured up out of emptiness, contradiction and vain

imagining, in which all the instincts of _decadence_, all the cowardices

and wearinesses of the soul find their sanction!--

20.

In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a

related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to

_Buddhism_. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions--they

are both _decadence_ religions--but they are separated from each other

in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to _compare_ them

at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of

India.--Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is

part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively

and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical

speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it

appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely _positive_ religion to be

encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which

is a strict phenomenalism). It does not speak of a "struggle with sin,"

but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply

differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception

that lies in moral concepts behind it; it is, in my phrase, _beyond_

good and evil.--The two physiological facts upon which it grounds itself

and upon which it bestows its chief attention are: first, an excessive

sensitiveness to sensation, which manifests itself as a refined

susceptibility to pain, and _secondly_, an extraordinary spirituality, a

too protracted concern with concepts and logical procedures, under the

influence of which the instinct of personality has yielded to a notion

of the "impersonal." (--Both of these states will be familiar to a few

of my readers, the objectivists, by experience, as they are to me).

These physiological states produced a _depression_, and Buddha tried to

combat it by hygienic measures. Against it he prescribed a life in the

open, a life of travel; moderation in eating and a careful selection of

foods; caution in the use of intoxicants; the same caution in arousing

any of the passions that foster a bilious habit and heat the blood;

finally, no _worry_, either on one's own account or on account of

others. He encourages ideas that make for either quiet contentment or

good cheer--he finds means to combat ideas of other sorts. He

understands good, the state of goodness, as something which promotes

health. _Prayer_ is not included, and neither is _asceticism_. There is

no categorical imperative nor any disciplines, even within the walls of

a monastery (--it is always possible to leave--). These things would

have been simply means of increasing the excessive sensitiveness above

mentioned. For the same reason he does not advocate any conflict with

unbelievers; his teaching is antagonistic to nothing so much as to

revenge, aversion, _ressentiment_ (--"enmity never brings an end to

enmity": the moving refrain of all Buddhism....) And in all this he was

right, for it is precisely these passions which, in view of his main

regiminal purpose, are _unhealthful_. The mental fatigue that he

observes, already plainly displayed in too much "objectivity" (that is,

in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in loss of balance and

of "egoism"), he combats by strong efforts to lead even the spiritual

interests back to the _ego_. In Buddha's teaching egoism is a duty. The

"one thing needful," the question "how can you be delivered from

suffering," regulates and determines the whole spiritual diet.

(--Perhaps one will here recall that Athenian who also declared war upon

pure "scientificality," to wit, Socrates, who also elevated egoism to

the estate of a morality).

21.

The things necessary to Buddhism are a very mild climate, customs of

great gentleness and liberality, and _no_ militarism; moreover, it must

get its start among the higher and better educated classes.

Cheerfulness, quiet and the absence of desire are the chief desiderata,

and they are _attained_. Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection

is merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal.--

Under Christianity the instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed

come to the fore: it is only those who are at the bottom who seek their

salvation in it. Here the prevailing pastime, the favourite remedy for

boredom is the discussion of sin, self-criticism, the inquisition of

conscience; here the emotion produced by _power_ (called "God") is

pumped up (by prayer); here the highest good is regarded as

unattainable, as a gift, as "grace." Here, too, open dealing is lacking;

concealment and the darkened room are Christian. Here body is despised

and hygiene is denounced as sensual; the church even ranges itself

against cleanliness (--the first Christian order after the banishment of

the Moors closed the public baths, of which there were 270 in Cordova

alone). Christian, too, is a certain cruelty toward one's self and

toward others; hatred of unbelievers; the will to persecute. Sombre and

disquieting ideas are in the foreground; the most esteemed states of

mind, bearing the most respectable names, are epileptoid; the diet is so

regulated as to engender morbid symptoms and over-stimulate the nerves.

Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to

the "aristocratic"--along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (--one

resigns one's "body" to them; one wants _only_ one's "soul"...). And

Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage, of

freedom, of intellectual _libertinage_; Christian is all hatred of the

senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general....

22.

When Christianity departed from its native soil, that of the lowest

orders, the _underworld_ of the ancient world, and began seeking power

among barbarian peoples, it no longer had to deal with _exhausted_ men,

but with men still inwardly savage and capable of self-torture--in

brief, strong men, but bungled men. Here, unlike in the case of the

Buddhists, the cause of discontent with self, suffering through self, is

_not_ merely a general sensitiveness and susceptibility to pain, but, on

the contrary, an inordinate thirst for inflicting pain on others, a

tendency to obtain subjective satisfaction in hostile deeds and ideas.

Christianity had to embrace _barbaric_ concepts and valuations in order

to obtain mastery over barbarians: of such sort, for example, are the

sacrifices of the first-born, the drinking of blood as a sacrament, the

disdain of the intellect and of culture; torture in all its forms,

whether bodily or not; the whole pomp of the cult. Buddhism is a

religion for peoples in a further state of development, for races that

have become kind, gentle and over-spiritualized (--Europe is not yet

ripe for it--): it is a summons that takes them back to peace and

cheerfulness, to a careful rationing of the spirit, to a certain

hardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering _beasts of prey_;

its modus operandi is to make them _ill_--to make feeble is the

Christian recipe for taming, for "_civilizing_." Buddhism is a religion

for the closing, over-wearied stages of civilization. Christianity

appears before civilization has so much as begun--under certain

circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.

23.

Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more

objective. It no longer has to _justify_ its pains, its susceptibility

to suffering, by interpreting these things in terms of sin--it simply

says, as it simply thinks, "I suffer." To the barbarian, however,

suffering in itself is scarcely understandable: what he needs, first of

all, is an explanation as to _why_ he suffers. (His mere instinct

prompts him to deny his suffering altogether, or to endure it in

silence.) Here the word "devil" was a blessing: man had to have an

omnipotent and terrible enemy--there was no need to be ashamed of

suffering at the hands of such an enemy.--

At the bottom of Christianity there are several subtleties that belong

to the Orient. In the first place, it knows that it is of very little

consequence whether a thing be true or not, so long as it is _believed_

to be true. Truth and _faith_: here we have two wholly distinct worlds

of ideas, almost two diametrically _opposite_ worlds--the road to the

one and the road to the other lie miles apart. To understand that fact

thoroughly--this is almost enough, in the Orient, to _make_ one a sage.

The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows

it. When, for example, a man gets any _pleasure_ out of the notion that

he has been saved from sin, it is _not_ necessary for him to be actually

sinful, but merely to _feel_ sinful. But when _faith_ is thus exalted

above everything else, it necessarily follows that reason, knowledge and

patient inquiry have to be discredited: the road to the truth becomes a

forbidden road.--Hope, in its stronger forms, is a great deal more

powerful _stimulans_ to life than any sort of realized joy can ever be.

Man must be sustained in suffering by a hope so high that no conflict

with actuality can dash it--so high, indeed, that no fulfilment can

_satisfy_ it: a hope reaching out beyond this world. (Precisely because

of this power that hope has of making the suffering hold out, the Greeks

regarded it as the evil of evils, as the most _malign_ of evils; it

remained behind at the source of all evil.)[3]--In order that _love_ may

be possible, God must become a person; in order that the lower instincts

may take a hand in the matter God must be young. To satisfy the ardor of

the woman a beautiful saint must appear on the scene, and to satisfy

that of the men there must be a virgin. These things are necessary if

Christianity is to assume lordship over a soil on which some

aphrodisiacal or Adonis cult has already established a notion as to what

a cult ought to be. To insist upon _chastity_ greatly strengthens the

vehemence and subjectivity of the religious instinct--it makes the cult

warmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful.--Love is the state in which man

sees things most decidedly as they are _not_. The force of illusion

reaches its highest here, and so does the capacity for sweetening, for

_transfiguring_. When a man is in love he endures more than at any other

time; he submits to anything. The problem was to devise a religion which

would allow one to love: by this means the worst that life has to offer

is overcome--it is scarcely even noticed.--So much for the three

Christian virtues: faith, hope and charity: I call them the three

Christian _ingenuities_.--Buddhism is in too late a stage of

development, too full of positivism, to be shrewd in any such way.--

[3] That is, in Pandora's box.

24.

Here I barely touch upon the problem of the _origin_ of Christianity.

The _first_ thing necessary to its solution is this: that Christianity

is to be understood only by examining the soil from which it sprung--it

is _not_ a reaction against Jewish instincts; it is their inevitable

product; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic of the

Jews. In the words of the Saviour, "salvation is of the Jews."[4]--The

_second_ thing to remember is this: that the psychological type of the

Galilean is still to be recognized, but it was only in its most

degenerate form (which is at once maimed and overladen with foreign

features) that it could serve in the manner in which it has been used:

as a type of the _Saviour_ of mankind.--

[4] John iv, 22.

The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for

when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they

chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be _at any price_: this

price involved a radical _falsification_ of all nature, of all

naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of

the outer. They put themselves _against_ all those conditions under

which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been

_permitted_ to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood

in direct opposition to _natural_ conditions--one by one they distorted

religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each

became a _contradiction_ of its _natural significance_. We meet with the

same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only

as a copy: the Christian church, put beside the "people of God," shows a

complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the

Jews are the most _fateful_ people in the history of the world: their

influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that

today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it

is no more than the _final consequence of Judaism_.

In my "Genealogy of Morals" I give the first psychological explanation

of the concepts underlying those two antithetical things, a _noble_

morality and a _ressentiment_ morality, the second of which is a mere

product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system

belongs to the second division, and in every detail. In order to be able

to say Nay to everything representing an _ascending_ evolution of

life--that is, to well-being, to power, to beauty, to self-approval--the

instincts of _ressentiment_, here become downright genius, had to invent

an _other_ world in which the _acceptance of life_ appeared as the most

evil and abominable thing imaginable. Psychologically, the Jews are a

people gifted with the very strongest vitality, so much so that when

they found themselves facing impossible conditions of life they chose

voluntarily, and with a profound talent for self-preservation, the side

of all those instincts which make for _decadence_--_not_ as if mastered

by them, but as if detecting in them a power by which "the world" could

be _defied_. The Jews are the very opposite of _decadents_: they have

simply been forced into _appearing_ in that guise, and with a degree of

skill approaching the _non plus ultra_ of histrionic genius they have

managed to put themselves at the head of all _decadent_ movements (--for

example, the Christianity of Paul--), and so make of them something

stronger than any party frankly saying _Yes_ to life. To the sort of

men who reach out for power under Judaism and Christianity,--that is to

say, to the _priestly_ class--_decadence_ is no more than a means to an

end. Men of this sort have a vital interest in making mankind sick, and

in confusing the values of "good" and "bad," "true" and "false" in a

manner that is not only dangerous to life, but also slanders it.

25.

The history of Israel is invaluable as a typical history of an attempt

to _denaturize_ all natural values: I point to five facts which bear

this out. Originally, and above all in the time of the monarchy, Israel

maintained the _right_ attitude of things, which is to say, the natural

attitude. Its Jahveh was an expression of its consciousness of power,

its joy in itself, its hopes for itself: to him the Jews looked for

victory and salvation and through him they expected nature to give them

whatever was necessary to their existence--above all, rain. Jahveh is

the god of Israel, and _consequently_ the god of justice: this is the

logic of every race that has power in its hands and a good conscience in

the use of it. In the religious ceremonial of the Jews both aspects of

this self-approval stand revealed. The nation is grateful for the high

destiny that has enabled it to obtain dominion; it is grateful for the

benign procession of the seasons, and for the good fortune attending its

herds and its crops.--This view of things remained an ideal for a long

while, even after it had been robbed of validity by tragic blows:

anarchy within and the Assyrian without. But the people still retained,

as a projection of their highest yearnings, that vision of a king who

was at once a gallant warrior and an upright judge--a vision best

visualized in the typical prophet (_i. e._, critic and satirist of the

moment), Isaiah.--But every hope remained unfulfilled. The old god no

longer _could_ do what he used to do. He ought to have been abandoned.

But what actually happened? Simply this: the conception of him was

_changed_--the conception of him was _denaturized_; this was the price

that had to be paid for keeping him.--Jahveh, the god of "justice"--he

is in accord with Israel _no more_, he no longer vizualizes the national

egoism; he is now a god only conditionally.... The public notion of this

god now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators, who

interpret all happiness as a reward and all unhappiness as a punishment

for obedience or disobedience to him, for "sin": that most fraudulent of

all imaginable interpretations, whereby a "moral order of the world" is

set up, and the fundamental concepts, "cause" and "effect," are stood on

their heads. Once natural causation has been swept out of the world by

doctrines of reward and punishment some sort of _un_-natural causation

becomes necessary: and all other varieties of the denial of nature

follow it. A god who _demands_--in place of a god who helps, who gives

counsel, who is at bottom merely a name for every happy inspiration of

courage and self-reliance.... _Morality_ is no longer a reflection of

the conditions which make for the sound life and development of the

people; it is no longer the primary life-instinct; instead it has become

abstract and in opposition to life--a fundamental perversion of the

fancy, an "evil eye" on all things. _What_ is Jewish, _what_ is

Christian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness polluted

with the idea of "sin"; well-being represented as a danger, as a

"temptation"; a physiological disorder produced by the canker worm of

conscience....

26.

The concept of god falsified; the concept of morality falsified;--but

even here Jewish priest-craft did not stop. The whole history of Israel

ceased to be of any value: out with it!--These priests accomplished that

miracle of falsification of which a great part of the Bible is the

documentary evidence; with a degree of contempt unparalleled, and in the

face of all tradition and all historical reality, they translated the

past of their people into _religious_ terms, which is to say, they

converted it into an idiotic mechanism of salvation, whereby all

offences against Jahveh were punished and all devotion to him was

rewarded. We would regard this act of historical falsification as

something far more shameful if familiarity with the _ecclesiastical_

interpretation of history for thousands of years had not blunted our

inclinations for uprightness _in historicis_. And the philosophers

support the church: the _lie_ about a "moral order of the world" runs

through the whole of philosophy, even the newest. What is the meaning

of a "moral order of the world"? That there is a thing called the will

of God which, once and for all time, determines what man ought to do and

what he ought not to do; that the worth of a people, or of an individual

thereof, is to be measured by the extent to which they or he obey this

will of God; that the destinies of a people or of an individual are

_controlled_ by this will of God, which rewards or punishes according to

the degree of obedience manifested.--In place of all that pitiable lie

_reality_ has this to say: the _priest_, a parasitical variety of man

who can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life, takes the

name of God in vain: he calls that state of human society in which he

himself determines the value of all things "the kingdom of God"; he

calls the means whereby that state of affairs is attained "the will of

God"; with cold-blooded cynicism he estimates all peoples, all ages and

all individuals by the extent of their subservience or opposition to the

power of the priestly order. One observes him at work: under the hand of

the Jewish priesthood the _great_ age of Israel became an age of

decline; the Exile, with its long series of misfortunes, was

transformed into a _punishment_ for that great age--during which priests

had not yet come into existence. Out of the powerful and _wholly free_

heroes of Israel's history they fashioned, according to their changing

needs, either wretched bigots and hypocrites or men entirely "godless."

They reduced every great event to the idiotic formula: "obedient _or_

disobedient to God."--They went a step further: the "will of God" (in

other words some means necessary for preserving the power of the

priests) had to be _determined_--and to this end they had to have a

"revelation." In plain English, a gigantic literary fraud had to be

perpetrated, and "holy scriptures" had to be concocted--and so, with the

utmost hierarchical pomp, and days of penance and much lamentation over

the long days of "sin" now ended, they were duly published. The "will of

God," it appears, had long stood like a rock; the trouble was that

mankind had neglected the "holy scriptures".... But the "will of God"

had already been revealed to Moses.... What happened? Simply this: the

priest had formulated, once and for all time and with the strictest

meticulousness, what tithes were to be paid to him, from the largest to

the smallest (--not forgetting the most appetizing cuts of meat, for

the priest is a great consumer of beefsteaks); in brief, he let it be

known just _what he wanted_, what "the will of God" was.... From this

time forward things were so arranged that the priest became

_indispensable everywhere_; at all the great natural events of life, at

birth, at marriage, in sickness, at death, not to say at the

"_sacrifice_" (that is, at meal-times), the holy parasite put in his

appearance, and proceeded to _denaturize_ it--in his own phrase, to

"sanctify" it.... For this should be noted: that every natural habit,

every natural institution (the state, the administration of justice,

marriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by

the life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value _in itself_,

is reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the _reverse_ of

valuable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the "moral

order of the world"). The fact requires a sanction--a power to _grant

values_ becomes necessary, and the only way it can create such values is

by denying nature.... The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it

is only at this price that he can exist at all.--Disobedience to God,

which actually means to the priest, to "the law," now gets the name of

"sin"; the means prescribed for "reconciliation with God" are, of

course, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the

thumb of the priest; he alone can "save".... Psychologically considered,

"sins" are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical

basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest _lives_

upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be "sinning".... Prime

axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth"--in plain English, _him that

submitteth to the priest_.

27.

Christianity sprang from a soil so corrupt that on it everything

natural, every natural value, every _reality_ was opposed by the deepest

instincts of the ruling class--it grew up as a sort of war to the death

upon reality, and as such it has never been surpassed. The "holy

people," who had adopted priestly values and priestly names for all

things, and who, with a terrible logical consistency, had rejected

everything of the earth as "unholy," "worldly," "sinful"--this people

put its instinct into a final formula that was logical to the point of

self-annihilation: as _Christianity_ it actually denied even the last

form of reality, the "holy people," the "chosen people," _Jewish_

reality itself. The phenomenon is of the first order of importance: the

small insurrectionary movement which took the name of Jesus of Nazareth

is simply the Jewish instinct _redivivus_--in other words, it is the

priestly instinct come to such a pass that it can no longer endure the

priest as a fact; it is the discovery of a state of existence even more

fantastic than any before it, of a vision of life even more _unreal_

than that necessary to an ecclesiastical organization. Christianity

actually _denies_ the church....

I am unable to determine what was the target of the insurrection said to

have been led (whether rightly or _wrongly_) by Jesus, if it was not the

Jewish church--"church" being here used in exactly the same sense that

the word has today. It was an insurrection against the "good and just,"

against the "prophets of Israel," against the whole hierarchy of

society--_not_ against corruption, but against caste, privilege, order,

formalism. It was _unbelief_ in "superior men," a Nay flung at

everything that priests and theologians stood for. But the hierarchy

that was called into question, if only for an instant, by this movement

was the structure of piles which, above everything, was necessary to the

safety of the Jewish people in the midst of the "waters"--it represented

their _last_ possibility of survival; it was the final _residuum_ of

their independent political existence; an attack upon it was an attack

upon the most profound national instinct, the most powerful national

will to live, that has ever appeared on earth. This saintly anarchist,

who aroused the people of the abyss, the outcasts and "sinners," the

Chandala of Judaism, to rise in revolt against the established order of

things--and in language which, if the Gospels are to be credited, would

get him sent to Siberia today--this man was certainly a political

criminal, at least in so far as it was possible to be one in so

_absurdly unpolitical_ a community. This is what brought him to the

cross: the proof thereof is to be found in the inscription that was put

upon the cross. He died for his _own_ sins--there is not the slightest

ground for believing, no matter how often it is asserted, that he died

for the sins of others.--

28.

As to whether he himself was conscious of this contradiction--whether,

in fact, this was the only contradiction he was cognizant of--that is

quite another question. Here, for the first time, I touch upon the

problem of the _psychology of the Saviour_.--I confess, to begin with,

that there are very few books which offer me harder reading than the

Gospels. My difficulties are quite different from those which enabled

the learned curiosity of the German mind to achieve one of its most

unforgettable triumphs. It is a long while since I, like all other young

scholars, enjoyed with all the sapient laboriousness of a fastidious

philologist the work of the incomparable Strauss.[5] At that time I was

twenty years old: now I am too serious for that sort of thing. What do I

care for the contradictions of "tradition"? How can any one call pious

legends "traditions"? The histories of saints present the most dubious

variety of literature in existence; to examine them by the scientific

method, _in the entire absence of corroborative documents_, seems to me

to condemn the whole inquiry from the start--it is simply learned

idling....

[5] David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74), author of "Das Leben Jesu"

(1835-6), a very famous work in its day. Nietzsche here refers to it.

29.

What concerns _me_ is the psychological type of the Saviour. This type

might be depicted in the Gospels, in however mutilated a form and

however much overladen with extraneous characters--that is, in _spite_

of the Gospels; just as the figure of Francis of Assisi shows itself in

his legends in spite of his legends. It is _not_ a question of mere

truthful evidence as to what he did, what he said and how he actually

died; the question is, whether his type is still conceivable, whether it

has been handed down to us.--All the attempts that I know of to read the

_history_ of a "soul" in the Gospels seem to me to reveal only a

lamentable psychological levity. M. Renan, that mountebank _in

psychologicus_, has contributed the two most _unseemly_ notions to this

business of explaining the type of Jesus: the notion of the _genius_ and

that of the _hero_ ("_heros_"). But if there is anything essentially

unevangelical, it is surely the concept of the hero. What the Gospels

make instinctive is precisely the reverse of all heroic struggle, of

all taste for conflict: the very incapacity for resistance is here

converted into something moral: ("resist not evil!"--the most profound

sentence in the Gospels, perhaps the true key to them), to wit, the

blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the _inability_ to be an enemy.

What is the meaning of "glad tidings"?--The true life, the life eternal

has been found--it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in _you_;

it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions,

from all keeping of distances. Every one is the child of God--Jesus

claims nothing for himself alone--as the child of God each man is the

equal of every other man.... Imagine making Jesus a _hero_!--And what a

tremendous misunderstanding appears in the word "genius"! Our whole

conception of the "spiritual," the whole conception of our civilization,

could have had no meaning in the world that Jesus lived in. In the

strict sense of the physiologist, a quite different word ought to be

used here.... We all know that there is a morbid sensibility of the

tactile nerves which causes those suffering from it to recoil from every

touch, and from every effort to grasp a solid object. Brought to its

logical conclusion, such a physiological _habitus_ becomes an

instinctive hatred of all reality, a flight into the "intangible," into

the "incomprehensible"; a distaste for all formulae, for all conceptions

of time and space, for everything established--customs, institutions,

the church--; a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of

reality survives, a merely "inner" world, a "true" world, an "eternal"

world.... "The Kingdom of God is within _you_"....

30.

_The instinctive hatred of reality_: the consequence of an extreme

susceptibility to pain and irritation--so great that merely to be

"touched" becomes unendurable, for every sensation is too profound.

_The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, all hostility, all bounds

and distances in feeling_: the consequence of an extreme susceptibility

to pain and irritation--so great that it senses all resistance, all

compulsion to resistance, as unbearable _anguish_ (--that is to say, as

_harmful_, as _prohibited_ by the instinct of self-preservation), and

regards blessedness (joy) as possible only when it is no longer

necessary to offer resistance to anybody or anything, however evil or

dangerous--love, as the only, as the _ultimate_ possibility of life....

These are the two _physiological realities_ upon and out of which the

doctrine of salvation has sprung. I call them a sublime

super-development of hedonism upon a thoroughly unsalubrious soil. What

stands most closely related to them, though with a large admixture of

Greek vitality and nerve-force, is epicureanism, the theory of salvation

of paganism. Epicurus was a _typical decadent_: I was the first to

recognize him.--The fear of pain, even of infinitely slight pain--the

end of this _can_ be nothing save a _religion of love_....

31.

I have already given my answer to the problem. The prerequisite to it is

the assumption that the type of the Saviour has reached us only in a

greatly distorted form. This distortion is very probable: there are many

reasons why a type of that sort should not be handed down in a pure

form, complete and free of additions. The milieu in which this strange

figure moved must have left marks upon him, and more must have been

imprinted by the history, the _destiny_, of the early Christian

communities; the latter indeed, must have embellished the type

retrospectively with characters which can be understood only as serving

the purposes of war and of propaganda. That strange and sickly world

into which the Gospels lead us--a world apparently out of a Russian

novel, in which the scum of society, nervous maladies and "childish"

idiocy keep a tryst--must, in any case, have _coarsened_ the type: the

first disciples, in particular, must have been forced to translate an

existence visible only in symbols and incomprehensibilities into their

own crudity, in order to understand it at all--in their sight the type

could take on reality only after it had been recast in a familiar

mould.... The prophet, the messiah, the future judge, the teacher of

morals, the worker of wonders, John the Baptist--all these merely

presented chances to misunderstand it.... Finally, let us not underrate

the _proprium_ of all great, and especially all sectarian veneration: it

tends to erase from the venerated objects all its original traits and

idiosyncrasies, often so painfully strange--_it does not even see

them_. It is greatly to be regretted that no Dostoyevsky lived in the

neighbourhood of this most interesting _decadent_--I mean some one who

would have felt the poignant charm of such a compound of the sublime,

the morbid and the childish. In the last analysis, the type, as a type

of the _decadence_, may actually have been peculiarly complex and

contradictory: such a possibility is not to be lost sight of.

Nevertheless, the probabilities seem to be against it, for in that case

tradition would have been particularly accurate and objective, whereas

we have reasons for assuming the contrary. Meanwhile, there is a

contradiction between the peaceful preacher of the mount, the sea-shore

and the fields, who appears like a new Buddha on a soil very unlike

India's, and the aggressive fanatic, the mortal enemy of theologians and

ecclesiastics, who stands glorified by Renan's malice as "_le grand

maitre en ironie_." I myself haven't any doubt that the greater part of

this venom (and no less of _esprit_) got itself into the concept of the

Master only as a result of the excited nature of Christian propaganda:

we all know the unscrupulousness of sectarians when they set out to turn

their leader into an _apologia_ for themselves. When the early

Christians had need of an adroit, contentious, pugnacious and

maliciously subtle theologian to tackle other theologians, they

_created_ a "god" that met that need, just as they put into his mouth

without hesitation certain ideas that were necessary to them but that

were utterly at odds with the Gospels--"the second coming," "the last

judgment," all sorts of expectations and promises, current at the

time.--

32.

I can only repeat that I set myself against all efforts to intrude the

fanatic into the figure of the Saviour: the very word _imperieux_, used

by Renan, is alone enough to _annul_ the type. What the "glad tidings"

tell us is simply that there are no more contradictions; the kingdom of

heaven belongs to _children_; the faith that is voiced here is no more

an embattled faith--it is at hand, it has been from the beginning, it is

a sort of recrudescent childishness of the spirit. The physiologists, at

all events, are familiar with such a delayed and incomplete puberty in

the living organism, the result of degeneration. A faith of this sort is

not furious, it does not denounce, it does not defend itself: it does

not come with "the sword"--it does not realize how it will one day set

man against man. It does not manifest itself either by miracles, or by

rewards and promises, or by "scriptures": it is itself, first and last,

its own miracle, its own reward, its own promise, its own "kingdom of

God." This faith does not formulate itself--it simply _lives_, and so

guards itself against formulae. To be sure, the accident of environment,

of educational background gives prominence to concepts of a certain

sort: in primitive Christianity one finds _only_ concepts of a

Judaeo-Semitic character (--that of eating and drinking at the last

supper belongs to this category--an idea which, like everything else

Jewish, has been badly mauled by the church). But let us be careful not

to see in all this anything more than symbolical language, semantics[6]

an opportunity to speak in parables. It is only on the theory that no

work is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at

all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of

Sankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of

Lao-tse[8]--and in neither case would it have made any difference to

him.--With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call

Jesus a "free spirit"[9]--he cares nothing for what is established: the

word _killeth_,[10] whatever is established _killeth_. The idea of

"life" as an _experience_, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to

his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He

speaks only of inner things: "life" or "truth" or "light" is his word

for the innermost--in his sight everything else, the whole of reality,

all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as

allegory.--Here it is of paramount importance to be led into no error by

the temptations lying in Christian, or rather _ecclesiastical_

prejudices: such a symbolism _par excellence_ stands outside all

religion, all notions of worship, all history, all natural science, all

worldly experience, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all

books, all art--his "wisdom" is precisely a _pure ignorance_[11] of all

such things. He has never heard of _culture_; he doesn't have to make

war on it--he doesn't even deny it.... The same thing may be said of the

_state_, of the whole bourgeoise social order, of labour, of war--he has

no ground for denying "the world," for he knows nothing of the

ecclesiastical concept of "the world".... _Denial_ is precisely the

thing that is impossible to him.--In the same way he lacks argumentative

capacity, and has no belief that an article of faith, a "truth," may be

established by proofs (--_his_ proofs are inner "lights," subjective

sensations of happiness and self-approval, simple "proofs of power"--).

Such a doctrine _cannot_ contradict: it doesn't know that other

doctrines exist, or _can_ exist, and is wholly incapable of imagining

anything opposed to it.... If anything of the sort is ever encountered,

it laments the "blindness" with sincere sympathy--for it alone has

"light"--but it does not offer objections....

[6] The word _Semiotik_ is in the text, but it is probable that

_Semantik_ is what Nietzsche had in mind.

[7] One of the six great systems of Hindu philosophy.

[8] The reputed founder of Taoism.

[9] Nietzsche's name for one accepting his own philosophy.

[10] That is, the strict letter of the law--the chief target of Jesus's

early preaching.

[11] A reference to the "pure ignorance" (_reine Thorheit_) of Parsifal.

33.

In the whole psychology of the "Gospels" the concepts of guilt and

punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. "Sin," which means

anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished--_this

is precisely the "glad tidings."_ Eternal bliss is not merely promised,

nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the _only_

reality--what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.

The _results_ of such a point of view project themselves into a new _way

of life_, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a "belief" that

marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of

action; he acts _differently_. He offers no resistance, either by word

or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction

between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles ("neighbour," of

course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he

despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds

their mandates ("Swear not at all").[12] He never under any

circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her

infidelity.--And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises

from one instinct.--

[12] Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of

life--and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual

in his relations with God--not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of

the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he _knew_ that it was

only by a _way_ of life that one could feel one's self "divine,"

"blessed," "evangelical," a "child of God." _Not_ by "repentance," _not_

by "prayer and forgiveness" is the way to God: _only the Gospel way_

leads to God--it is _itself_ "God!"--What the Gospels _abolished_ was

the Judaism in the concepts of "sin," "forgiveness of sin," "faith,"

"salvation through faith"--the whole _ecclesiastical_ dogma of the Jews

was denied by the "glad tidings."

The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to _live_ so that he

will feel that he is "in heaven" and is "immortal," despite many reasons

for feeling that he is _not_ "in heaven": this is the only psychological

reality in "salvation."--A new way of life, _not_ a new faith....

34.

If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this:

that he regarded only _subjective_ realities as realities, as

"truths"--that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal,

spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The

concept of "the Son of God" does not connote a concrete person in

history, an isolated and definite individual, but an "eternal" fact, a

psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing

is true, and in the highest sense, of the _God_ of this typical

symbolist, of the "kingdom of God," and of the "sonship of God." Nothing

could be more un-Christian than the _crude ecclesiastical_ notions of

God as a _person_, of a "kingdom of God" that is to come, of a "kingdom

of heaven" beyond, and of a "son of God" as the _second person_ of the

Trinity. All this--if I may be forgiven the phrase--is like thrusting

one's fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect

for symbols amounting to _world-historical cynicism_.... But it is

nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols "Father" and

"Son"--not, of course, to every one--: the word "Son" expresses

_entrance_ into the feeling that there is a general transformation of

all things (beatitude), and "Father" expresses _that feeling

itself_--the sensation of eternity and of perfection.--I am ashamed to

remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set

an Amphitryon story[13] at the threshold of the Christian "faith"? And a

dogma of "immaculate conception" for good measure?... _And thereby it

has robbed conception of its immaculateness_--

[13] Amphitryon was the son of Alcaeus, King of Tiryns.

His wife was Alcmene. During his absence she was visited by Zeus, and

bore Heracles.

The "kingdom of heaven" is a state of the heart--not something to come

"beyond the world" or "after death." The whole idea of natural death is

_absent_ from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is

absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world,

useful only as a symbol. The "hour of death" is _not_ a Christian

idea--"hours," time, the physical life and its crises have no existence

for the bearer of "glad tidings."... The "kingdom of God" is not

something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after

tomorrow, it is not going to come at a "millennium"--it is an experience

of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere....

35.

This "bearer of glad tidings" died as he lived and _taught_--_not_ to

"save mankind," but to show mankind how to live. It was a _way of life_

that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the

officers, before his accusers--his demeanour on the _cross_. He does not

resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off

the most extreme penalty--more, _he invites it_.... And he prays,

suffers and loves _with_ those, _in_ those, who do him evil.... _Not_ to

defend one's self, _not_ to show anger, _not_ to lay blames.... On the

contrary, to submit even to the Evil One--to _love_ him....

36.

--We free spirits--we are the first to have the necessary prerequisite

to understanding what nineteen centuries have misunderstood--that

instinct and passion for integrity which makes war upon the "holy lie"

even more than upon all other lies.... Mankind was unspeakably far from

our benevolent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the

spirit which alone makes possible the solution of such strange and

subtle things: what men always sought, with shameless egoism, was their

_own_ advantage therein; they created the _church_ out of denial of the

Gospels....

Whoever sought for signs of an ironical divinity's hand in the great

drama of existence would find no small indication thereof in the

_stupendous question-mark_ that is called Christianity. That mankind

should be on its knees before the very antithesis of what was the

origin, the meaning and the _law_ of the Gospels--that in the concept of

the "church" the very things should be pronounced holy that the "bearer

of glad tidings" regards as _beneath_ him and _behind_ him--it would be

impossible to surpass this as a grand example of _world-historical

irony_--

37.

--Our age is proud of its historical sense: how, then, could it delude

itself into believing that the _crude fable of the wonder-worker and

Saviour_ constituted the beginnings of Christianity--and that everything

spiritual and symbolical in it only came later? Quite to the contrary,

the whole history of Christianity--from the death on the cross

onward--is the history of a progressively clumsier misunderstanding of

an _original_ symbolism. With every extension of Christianity among

larger and ruder masses, even less capable of grasping the principles

that gave birth to it, the need arose to make it more and more _vulgar_

and _barbarous_--it absorbed the teachings and rites of all the

_subterranean_ cults of the _imperium Romanum_, and the absurdities

engendered by all sorts of sickly reasoning. It was the fate of

Christianity that its faith had to become as sickly, as low and as

vulgar as the needs were sickly, low and vulgar to which it had to

administer. A _sickly barbarism_ finally lifts itself to power as the

church--the church, that incarnation of deadly hostility to all honesty,

to all loftiness of soul, to all discipline of the spirit, to all

spontaneous and kindly humanity.--_Christian_ values--_noble_ values: it

is only we, we _free_ spirits, who have re-established this greatest of

all antitheses in values!...

38.

--I cannot, at this place, avoid a sigh. There are days when I am

visited by a feeling blacker than the blackest melancholy--_contempt of

man_. Let me leave no doubt as to _what_ I despise, _whom_ I despise:

it is the man of today, the man with whom I am unhappily

contemporaneous. The man of today--I am suffocated by his foul

breath!... Toward the past, like all who understand, I am full of

tolerance, which is to say, _generous_ self-control: with gloomy caution

I pass through whole millenniums of this madhouse of a world, call it

"Christianity," "Christian faith" or the "Christian church," as you

will--I take care not to hold mankind responsible for its lunacies. But

my feeling changes and breaks out irresistibly the moment I enter modern

times, _our_ times. Our age _knows better_.... What was formerly merely

sickly now becomes indecent--it is indecent to be a Christian today.

_And here my disgust begins._--I look about me: not a word survives of

what was once called "truth"; we can no longer bear to hear a priest

pronounce the word. Even a man who makes the most modest pretensions to

integrity _must_ know that a theologian, a priest, a pope of today not

only errs when he speaks, but actually _lies_--and that he no longer

escapes blame for his lie through "innocence" or "ignorance." The priest

knows, as every one knows, that there is no longer any "God," or any

"sinner," or any "Saviour"--that "free will" and the "moral order of the

world" are lies--: serious reflection, the profound self-conquest of the

spirit, _allow_ no man to pretend that he does _not_ know it.... _All_

the ideas of the church are now recognized for what they are--as the

worst counterfeits in existence, invented to debase nature and all

natural values; the priest himself is seen as he actually is--as the

most dangerous form of parasite, as the venomous spider of creation....

We know, our _conscience_ now knows--just _what_ the real value of all

those sinister inventions of priest and church has been and _what ends

they have served_, with their debasement of humanity to a state of

self-pollution, the very sight of which excites loathing,--the concepts

"the other world," "the last judgment," "the immortality of the soul,"

the "soul" itself: they are all merely so many instruments of torture,

systems of cruelty, whereby the priest becomes master and remains

master.... Every one knows this, _but nevertheless things remain as

before_. What has become of the last trace of decent feeling, of

self-respect, when our statesmen, otherwise an unconventional class of

men and thoroughly anti-Christian in their acts, now call themselves

Christians and go to the communion-table?... A prince at the head of his

armies, magnificent as the expression of the egoism and arrogance of his

people--and yet acknowledging, _without_ any shame, that he is a

Christian!... Whom, then, does Christianity deny? _what_ does it call

"the world"? To be a _soldier_, to be a judge, to be a patriot; to

defend one's self; to be careful of one's honour; to desire one's own

advantage; to be _proud_ ... every act of everyday, every instinct,

every valuation that shows itself in a _deed_, is now anti-Christian:

what a _monster of falsehood_ the modern man must be to call himself

nevertheless, and _without_ shame, a Christian!--

39.

--I shall go back a bit, and tell you the _authentic_ history of

Christianity.--The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at

bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The

"Gospels" _died_ on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called

the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what _he_ had lived: "bad

tidings," a _Dysangelium_.[14] It is an error amounting to

nonsensicality to see in "faith," and particularly in faith in salvation

through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the

Christian _way of life_, the life _lived_ by him who died on the cross,

is Christian.... To this day _such_ a life is still possible, and for

_certain_ men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will

remain possible in all ages.... _Not_ faith, but acts; above all, an

_avoidance_ of acts, a different _state of being_.... States of

consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything

as true--as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is

perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts:

strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false.

To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance

of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the

negation of Christianity. _In fact, there are no Christians._ The

"Christian"--he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian--is

simply a psychological self-delusion. Closely examined, it appears

that, _despite_ all his "faith," he has been ruled _only_ by his

instincts--and _what instincts_!--In all ages--for example, in the case

of Luther--"faith" has been no more than a cloak, a pretense, a _curtain_

behind which the instincts have played their game--a shrewd _blindness_

to the domination of _certain_ of the instincts.... I have already

called "faith" the specially Christian form of _shrewdness_--people

always _talk_ of their "faith" and _act_ according to their

instincts.... In the world of ideas of the Christian there is nothing

that so much as touches reality: on the contrary, one recognizes

an instinctive _hatred_ of reality as the motive power, the only motive

power at the bottom of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That even

here, in _psychologicis_, there is a radical error, which is to say one

conditioning fundamentals, which is to say, one in _substance_. Take

away one idea and put a genuine reality in its place--and the whole of

Christianity crumbles to nothingness!--Viewed calmly, this strangest of

all phenomena, a religion not only depending on errors, but inventive

and ingenious _only_ in devising injurious errors, poisonous to life

and to the heart--this remains a _spectacle for the gods_--for those

gods who are also philosophers, and whom I have encountered, for

example, in the celebrated dialogues at Naxos. At the moment when their

_disgust_ leaves them (--and us!) they will be thankful for the

spectacle afforded by the Christians: perhaps because of _this_ curious

exhibition alone the wretched little planet called the earth deserves a

glance from omnipotence, a show of divine interest.... Therefore, let us

not underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false _to the point of

innocence_, is far above the ape--in its application to the Christians a

well-known theory of descent becomes a mere piece of politeness....

[14] So in the text. One of Nietzsche's numerous coinages, obviously

suggested by _Evangelium_, the German for _gospel_.

40.

--The fate of the Gospels was decided by death--it hung on the "cross."...

It was only death, that unexpected and shameful death; it was only

the cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille only--it was only

this appalling paradox which brought the disciples face to face with the

real riddle: "_Who was it? what was it_?"--The feeling of dismay, of

profound affront and injury; the suspicion that such a death might

involve a _refutation_ of their cause; the terrible question, "Why just

in this way?"--this state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here

everything _must_ be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a

meaning, a reason, the highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple

excludes all chance. Only then did the chasm of doubt yawn: "_Who_ put

him to death? who was his natural enemy?"--this question flashed like a

lightning-stroke. Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that

moment, one found one's self in revolt _against_ the established order,

and began to understand Jesus as _in revolt against the established

order_. Until then this militant, this nay-saying, nay-doing element in

his character had been lacking; what is more, he had appeared to present

its opposite. Obviously, the little community had _not_ understood what

was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered by

this way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of

_ressentiment_--a plain indication of how little he was understood at

all! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by his death, in itself,

was to offer the strongest possible proof, or _example_, of his

teachings in the most public manner.... But his disciples were very far

from _forgiving_ his death--though to have done so would have accorded

with the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared

to _offer_ themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a

similar death.... On the contrary, it was precisely the most

unevangelical of feelings, _revenge_, that now possessed them. It seemed

impossible that the cause should perish with his death: "recompense" and

"judgment" became necessary (--yet what could be less evangelical than

"recompense," "punishment," and "sitting in judgment"!). Once more the

popular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground;

attention was rivetted upon an historical moment: the "kingdom of God"

is to come, with judgment upon his enemies.... But in all this there was

a wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the "kingdom of God" as a last

act, as a mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation,

the fulfilment, the _realization_ of this "kingdom of God." It was only

now that all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees

and theologians began to appear in the character of the Master--he was

thereby _turned_ into a Pharisee and theologian himself! On the other

hand, the savage veneration of these completely unbalanced souls could

no longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the equal

right of all men to be children of God: their revenge took the form of

_elevating_ Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him

from themselves: just as, in earlier times, the Jews, to revenge

themselves upon their enemies, separated themselves from their God, and

placed him on a great height. The One God and the Only Son of God: both

were products of _ressentiment_....

41.

--And from that time onward an absurd problem offered itself: "how

_could_ God allow it!" To which the deranged reason of the little

community formulated an answer that was terrifying in its absurdity: God

gave his son as a _sacrifice_ for the forgiveness of sins. At once there

was an end of the gospels! Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious

and barbarous form: sacrifice of the _innocent_ for the sins of the

guilty! What appalling paganism!--Jesus himself had done away with the

very concept of "guilt," he denied that there was any gulf fixed between

God and man; he _lived_ this unity between God and man, and that was

precisely _his_ "glad tidings".... And _not_ as a mere privilege!--From

this time forward the type of the Saviour was corrupted, bit by bit, by

the doctrine of judgment and of the second coming, the doctrine of death

as a sacrifice, the doctrine of the _resurrection_, by means of which

the entire concept of "blessedness," the whole and only reality of the

gospels, is juggled away--in favour of a state of existence _after_

death!... St. Paul, with that rabbinical impudence which shows itself in

all his doings, gave a logical quality to that conception, that

_indecent_ conception, in this way: "_If_ Christ did not rise from the

dead, then all our faith is in vain!"--And at once there sprang from the

Gospels the most contemptible of all unfulfillable promises, the

_shameless_ doctrine of personal immortality.... Paul even preached it

as a _reward_....

42.

One now begins to see just _what_ it was that came to an end with the

death on the cross: a new and thoroughly original effort to found a

Buddhistic peace movement, and so establish _happiness on earth_--real,

_not_ merely promised. For this remains--as I have already pointed

out--the essential difference between the two religions of _decadence_:

Buddhism promises nothing, but actually fulfils; Christianity promises

everything, but _fulfils nothing_.--Hard upon the heels of the "glad

tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated

the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the

genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred.

_What_, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above

all, the Saviour: he nailed him to _his own_ cross. The life, the

example, the teaching, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of

the whole gospels--nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter

in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely _not_ reality; surely _not_

historical truth!... Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew

perpetrated the same old master crime against history--he simply struck

out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and

_invented his own history of Christian beginnings_. Going further, he

treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it

became a mere prologue to _his_ achievement: all the prophets, it now

appeared, had referred to _his_ "Saviour."... Later on the church even

falsified the history of man in order to make it a prologue to

Christianity.... The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of

life, his death, the meaning of his death, even the consequences of his

death--nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even remote

contact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that

whole life to a place _behind_ this existence--in the _lie_ of the

"risen" Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the

Saviour--what he needed was the death on the cross, _and_ something

more. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at

the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an

hallucination into a _proof_ of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even

to believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination

himself--this would be a genuine _niaiserie_ in a psychologist. Paul

willed the end; _therefore_ he also willed the means.... What he himself

didn't believe was swallowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he

spread _his_ teaching.--What _he_ wanted was power; in Paul the priest

once more reached out for power--he had use only for such concepts,

teachings and symbols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the

masses and organizing mobs. _What_ was the only part of Christianity

that Mohammed borrowed later on? Paul's invention, his device for

establishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the

immortality of the soul--_that is to say, the doctrine of

"judgment"_....

43.

When the centre of gravity of life is placed, _not_ in life itself, but

in "the beyond"--in _nothingness_--then one has taken away its centre of

gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all

reason, all natural instinct--henceforth, everything in the instincts

that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is

a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning:

_this_ is now the "meaning" of life.... Why be public-spirited? Why take

any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labour together, trust one

another, or concern one's self about the common welfare, and try to

serve it?... Merely so many "temptations," so many strayings from the

"straight path."--"_One_ thing only is necessary".... That every man,

because he has an "immortal soul," is as good as every other man; that

in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of _every_ individual

may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the

three-fourths insane may assume that the laws of nature are constantly

_suspended_ in their behalf--it is impossible to lavish too much

contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to

infinity, to _insolence_. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely

_this_ miserable flattery of personal vanity for its _triumph_--it was

thus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon

evil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side.

The "salvation of the soul"--in plain English: "the world revolves

around _me_."... The poisonous doctrine, "_equal_ rights for all," has

been propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and

crannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all

feelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to

say, upon the first _prerequisite_ to every step upward, to every

development of civilization--out of the _ressentiment_ of the masses it

has forged its chief weapons against _us_, against everything noble,

joyous and high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth.... To

allow "immortality" to every Peter and Paul was the greatest, the most

vicious outrage upon _noble_ humanity ever perpetrated.--_And_ let us

not underestimate the fatal influence that Christianity has had, even

upon politics! Nowadays no one has courage any more for special rights,

for the right of dominion, for feelings of honourable pride in himself

and his equals--for the _pathos of distance_.... Our politics is sick

with this lack of courage!--The aristocratic attitude of mind has been

undermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if belief in the

"privileges of the majority" makes and _will continue to make_

revolutions--it is Christianity, let us not doubt, and _Christian_

valuations, which convert every revolution into a carnival of blood and

crime! Christianity is a revolt of all creatures that creep on the

ground against everything that is _lofty_: the gospel of the "lowly"

_lowers_....

44.

--The gospels are invaluable as evidence of the corruption that was

already persistent _within_ the primitive community. That which Paul,

with the cynical logic of a rabbi, later developed to a conclusion was

at bottom merely a process of decay that had begun with the death of the

Saviour.--These gospels cannot be read too carefully; difficulties lurk

behind every word. I confess--I hope it will not be held against

me--that it is precisely for this reason that they offer first-rate joy

to a psychologist--as the _opposite_ of all merely naive corruption, as

refinement _par excellence_, as an artistic triumph in psychological

corruption. The gospels, in fact, stand alone. The Bible as a whole is

not to be compared to them. Here we are among Jews: this is the _first_

thing to be borne in mind if we are not to lose the thread of the

matter. This positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal

"holiness" unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this

elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an _art_--all

this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or

to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is _race_. The whole

of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies,

and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard

practice of Jewish technic, the business comes to the stage of mastery.

The Christian, that _ultima ratio_ of lying, is the Jew all over

again--he is _threefold_ the Jew.... The underlying will to make use

only of such concepts, symbols and attitudes as fit into priestly

practice, the instinctive repudiation of every _other_ mode of thought,

and every other method of estimating values and utilities--this is not

only tradition, it is _inheritance_: only as an inheritance is it able

to operate with the force of nature. The whole of mankind, even the best

minds of the best ages (with one exception, perhaps hardly human--),

have permitted themselves to be deceived. The gospels have been read as

a _book of innocence_ ... surely no small indication of the high skill

with which the trick has been done.--Of course, if we could actually

_see_ these astounding bigots and bogus saints, even if only for an

instant, the farce would come to an end,--and it is precisely because

_I_ cannot read a word of theirs without seeing their attitudinizing

that _I have made an end of them_.... I simply cannot endure the way

they have of rolling up their eyes.--For the majority, happily enough,

books are mere _literature_.--Let us not be led astray: they say "judge

not," and yet they condemn to hell whoever stands in their way. In

letting God sit in judgment they judge themselves; in glorifying God

they glorify themselves; in _demanding_ that every one show the virtues

which they themselves happen to be capable of--still more, which they

_must_ have in order to remain on top--they assume the grand air of men

struggling for virtue, of men engaging in a war that virtue may prevail.

"We live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves _for the good_" (--"the truth,"

"the light," "the kingdom of God"): in point of fact, they simply do

what they cannot help doing. Forced, like hypocrites, to be sneaky, to

hide in corners, to slink along in the shadows, they convert their

necessity into a _duty_: it is on grounds of duty that they account for

their lives of humility, and that humility becomes merely one more proof

of their piety.... Ah, that humble, chaste, charitable brand of fraud!

"Virtue itself shall bear witness for us."... One may read the gospels

as books of _moral_ seduction: these petty folks fasten themselves to

morality--they know the uses of morality! Morality is the best of all

devices for leading mankind _by the nose_!--The fact is that the

conscious conceit of the chosen here disguises itself as modesty: it is

in this way that _they_, the "community," the "good and just," range

themselves, once and for always, on one side, the side of "the

truth"--and the rest of mankind, "the world," on the other.... In _that_

we observe the most fatal sort of megalomania that the earth has ever

seen: little abortions of bigots and liars began to claim exclusive

rights in the concepts of "God," "the truth," "the light," "the spirit,"

"love," "wisdom" and "life," as if these things were synonyms of

themselves and thereby they sought to fence themselves off from the

"world"; little super-Jews, ripe for some sort of madhouse, turned

values upside down in order to meet _their_ notions, just as if the

Christian were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even the _last

judgment_ of all the rest.... The whole disaster was only made possible

by the fact that there already existed in the world a similar

megalomania, allied to this one in race, to wit, the _Jewish_: once a

chasm began to yawn between Jews and Judaeo-Christians, the latter had

no choice but to employ the self-preservative measures that the Jewish

instinct had devised, even _against_ the Jews themselves, whereas the

Jews had employed them only against non-Jews. The Christian is simply a

Jew of the "reformed" confession.--

45.

--I offer a few examples of the sort of thing these petty people have

got into their heads--what they have _put into the mouth_ of the Master:

the unalloyed creed of "beautiful souls."--

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart

thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha

in the day of judgment, than for that city" (Mark vi, 11)--How

_evangelical_!...

"And whosoever shall offend one of _these_ little ones that believe in

me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,

and he were cast into the sea" (Mark ix, 42).--How _evangelical_!...

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for

thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes

to be cast into hell fire; Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not

quenched." (Mark ix, 47.[15])--It is not exactly the eye that is

meant....

[15] To which, without mentioning it, Nietzsche adds verse 48.

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here,

which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God

come with power." (Mark ix, 1.)--Well _lied_, lion![16]...

[16] A paraphrase of Demetrius' "Well roar'd, Lion!" in act v, scene 1

of "A Midsummer Night's Dream." The lion, of course, is the familiar

Christian symbol for Mark.

"Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his

cross, and follow me. _For_..." (_Note of a psychologist._ Christian

morality is refuted by its _fors_: its reasons are against it,--this

makes it Christian.) Mark viii, 34.--

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete, it shall

be measured to you again." (Matthew vii, 1.[17])--What a notion of

justice, of a "just" judge!...

[17] Nietzsche also quotes part of verse 2.

"For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even

the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye

more _than others_? do not even the publicans so?" (Matthew v,

46.[18])--Principle of "Christian love": it insists upon being well

_paid_ in the end....

[18] The quotation also includes verse 47.

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father

forgive your trespasses." (Matthew vi, 15.)--Very compromising for the

said "father."...

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all

these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew vi, 33.)--All these

things: namely, food, clothing, all the necessities of life. An _error_,

to put it mildly.... A bit before this God appears as a tailor, at least

in certain cases....

"Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward _is_

great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the

prophets." (Luke vi, 23.)--_Impudent_ rabble! It compares itself to the

prophets....

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and _that_ the spirit of God

dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, _him shall God

destroy_; for the temple of God is holy, _which temple ye are_." (Paul,

1 Corinthians iii, 16.[19])--For that sort of thing one cannot have

enough contempt....

[19] And 17.

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world

shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

(Paul, 1 Corinthians vi, 2.)--Unfortunately, not merely the speech of

a lunatic.... This _frightful impostor_ then proceeds: "Know ye not

that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this

life?"...

"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in

the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by

the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.... Not many wise

men after the flesh, not men mighty, not many noble _are called_: But

God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things

which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are

despised, hath God chosen, _yea_, and things which are not, to bring to

nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

(Paul, 1 Corinthians i, 20ff.[20])--In order to _understand_ this

passage, a first-rate example of the psychology underlying every

Chandala-morality, one should read the first part of my "Genealogy of

Morals": there, for the first time, the antagonism between a _noble_

morality and a morality born of _ressentiment_ and impotent vengefulness

is exhibited. Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge....

[20] Verses 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29.

46.

--_What follows, then?_ That one had better put on gloves before reading

the New Testament. The presence of so much filth makes it very

advisable. One would as little choose "early Christians" for companions

as Polish Jews: not that one need seek out an objection to them....

Neither has a pleasant smell.--I have searched the New Testament in vain

for a single sympathetic touch; nothing is there that is free, kindly,

open-hearted or upright. In it humanity does not even make the first

step upward--the instinct for _cleanliness_ is lacking.... Only _evil_

instincts are there, and there is not even the courage of these evil

instincts. It is all cowardice; it is all a shutting of the eyes, a

self-deception. Every other book becomes clean, once one has read the

New Testament: for example, immediately after reading Paul I took up

with delight that most charming and wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of

whom one may say what Domenico Boccaccio wrote of Caesar Borgia to the

Duke of Parma: "_e tutto festo_"--immortally healthy, immortally

cheerful and sound.... These petty bigots make a capital miscalculation.

They attack, but everything they attack is thereby _distinguished_.

Whoever is attacked by an "early Christian" is surely _not_ befouled....

On the contrary, it is an honour to have an "early Christian" as an

opponent. One cannot read the New Testament without acquired admiration

for whatever it abuses--not to speak of the "wisdom of this world,"

which an impudent wind-bag tries to dispose of "by the foolishness of

preaching."... Even the scribes and pharisees are benefitted by such

opposition: they must certainly have been worth something to have been

hated in such an indecent manner. Hypocrisy--as if this were a charge

that the "early Christians" _dared_ to make!--After all, they were the

_privileged_, and that was enough: the hatred of the Chandala needed no

other excuse. The "early Christian"--and also, I fear, the "last

Christian," _whom I may perhaps live to see_--is a rebel against all

privilege by profound instinct--he lives and makes war for ever for

"equal rights."... Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. When a man

proposes to represent, in his own person, the "chosen of God"--or to be

a "temple of God," or a "judge of the angels"--then every _other_

criterion, whether based upon honesty, upon intellect, upon manliness

and pride, or upon beauty and freedom of the heart, becomes simply

"worldly"--_evil in itself_.... Moral: every word that comes from the

lips of an "early Christian" is a lie, and his every act is

instinctively dishonest--all his values, all his aims are noxious, but

_whoever_ he hates, _whatever_ he hates, has real _value_.... The

Christian, and particularly the Christian priest, is thus a _criterion

of values_.

--Must I add that, in the whole New Testament, there appears but a

_solitary_ figure worthy of honour? Pilate, the Roman viceroy. To regard

a Jewish imbroglio _seriously_--that was quite beyond him. One Jew more

or less--what did it matter?... The noble scorn of a Roman, before whom

the word "truth" was shamelessly mishandled, enriched the New Testament

with the only saying _that has any value_--and that is at once its

criticism and its _destruction_: "What is truth?..."

47.

--The thing that sets us apart is not that we are unable to find God,

either in history, or in nature, or behind nature--but that we regard

what has been honoured as God, not as "divine," but as pitiable, as

absurd, as injurious; not as a mere error, but as a _crime against

life_.... We deny that God is God.... If any one were to _show_ us this

Christian God, we'd be still less inclined to believe in him.--In a

formula: _deus, qualem Paulus creavit, dei negatio_.--Such a religion as

Christianity, which does not touch reality at a single point and which

goes to pieces the moment reality asserts its rights at any point, must

be inevitably the deadly enemy of the "wisdom of this world," which is

to say, of _science_--and it will give the name of good to whatever

means serve to poison, calumniate and _cry down_ all intellectual

discipline, all lucidity and strictness in matters of intellectual

conscience, and all noble coolness and freedom of the mind. "Faith," as

an imperative, vetoes science--_in praxi_, lying at any price.... Paul

_well knew_ that lying--that "faith"--was necessary; later on the church

borrowed the fact from Paul.--The God that Paul invented for himself, a

God who "reduced to absurdity" "the wisdom of this world" (especially

the two great enemies of superstition, philology and medicine), is in

truth only an indication of Paul's resolute _determination_ to

accomplish that very thing himself: to give one's own will the name of

God, _thora_--that is essentially Jewish. Paul _wants_ to dispose of the

"wisdom of this world": his enemies are the _good_ philologians and

physicians of the Alexandrine school--on them he makes his war. As a

matter of fact no man can be a _philologian_ or a physician without

being also _Antichrist_. That is to say, as a philologian a man sees

_behind_ the "holy books," and as a physician he sees _behind_ the

physiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The physician says

"incurable"; the philologian says "fraud."...

48.

--Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the

beginning of the Bible--of God's mortal terror of _science_?... No one,

in fact, has understood it. This priest-book _par excellence_ opens, as

is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: _he_ faces

only one great danger; _ergo_, "God" faces only one great danger.--

The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is

promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against

boredom even gods struggle in vain.[21] What does he do? He creates

man--man is entertaining.... But then he notices that man is also bored.

God's pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises

knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God's first

mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining--he sought

dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself.--So God

created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many

other things! Woman was the _second_ mistake of God.--"Woman, at bottom,

is a serpent, Heva"--every priest knows that; "from woman comes every

evil in the world"--every priest knows that, too. _Ergo_, she is also to

blame for _science_.... It was through woman that man learned to taste

of the tree of knowledge.--What happened? The old God was seized by

mortal terror. Man himself had been his _greatest_ blunder; he had

created a rival to himself; science makes men _godlike_--it is all up

with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!--_Moral_: science is

the forbidden _per se_; it alone is forbidden. Science is the _first_ of

sins, the germ of all sins, the _original_ sin. _This is all there is of

morality._--"Thou shall _not_ know":--the rest follows from that.--God's

mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one

to _protect_ one's self against science? For a long while this was the

capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure,

foster thought--and all thoughts are bad thoughts!--Man _must_ not

think.--And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of

childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all,

_sickness_--nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles

of man don't _allow_ him to think.... Nevertheless--how terrible!--, the

edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing

the gods--what is to be done?--The old God invents _war_; he separates

the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (--the priests have always

had need of war....). War--among other things, a great disturber of

science!--Incredible! Knowledge, _deliverance from the priests_,

prospers in spite of war.--So the old God comes to his final resolution:

"Man has become scientific--_there is no help for it: he must be

drowned!_"...

[21] A paraphrase of Schiller's "Against stupidity even gods struggle in

vain."

49.

--I have been understood. At the opening of the Bible there is the

_whole_ psychology of the priest.--The priest knows of only one great

danger: that is science--the sound comprehension of cause and effect.

But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable

conditions--a man must have time, he must have an _overflowing_

intellect, in order to "know."... "_Therefore_, man must be made

unhappy,"--this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.--It is

easy to see just _what_, by this logic, was the first thing to come into

the world:--"_sin_."... The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole

"moral order of the world," was set up _against_ science--_against_ the

deliverance of man from priests.... Man must _not_ look outward; he must

look inward. He must _not_ look at things shrewdly and cautiously, to

learn about them; he must not look at all; he must _suffer_.... And he

must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest.--Away with

physicians! _What is needed is a Saviour._--The concept of guilt and

punishment, including the doctrines of "grace," of "salvation," of

"forgiveness"--_lies_ through and through, and absolutely without

psychological reality--were devised to destroy man's _sense of

causality_: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and

effect!--And _not_ an attack with the fist, with the knife, with honesty

in hate and love! On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly,

the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! An attack of _priests_!

An attack of _parasites_! The vampirism of pale, subterranean

leeches!... When the natural consequences of an act are no longer

"natural," but are regarded as produced by the ghostly creations of

superstition--by "God," by "spirits," by "souls"--and reckoned as merely

"moral" consequences, as rewards, as punishments, as hints, as lessons,

then the whole ground-work of knowledge is destroyed--_then the greatest

of crimes against humanity has been perpetrated_.--I repeat that sin,

man's self-desecration _par excellence_, was invented in order to make

science, culture, and every elevation and ennobling of man impossible;

the priest _rules_ through the invention of sin.--

50.

--In this place I can't permit myself to omit a psychology of "belief,"

of the "believer," for the special benefit of "believers." If there

remain any today who do not yet know how _indecent_ it is to be

"believing"--_or_ how much a sign of _decadence_, of a broken will to

live--then they will know it well enough tomorrow. My voice reaches even

the deaf.--It appears, unless I have been incorrectly informed, that

there prevails among Christians a sort of criterion of truth that is

called "proof by power." "Faith makes blessed: _therefore_ it is

true."--It might be objected right here that blessedness is not

demonstrated, it is merely _promised_: it hangs upon "faith" as a

condition--one _shall_ be blessed _because_ one believes.... But what of

the thing that the priest promises to the believer, the wholly

transcendental "beyond"--how is _that_ to be demonstrated?--The "proof

by power," thus assumed, is actually no more at bottom than a belief

that the effects which faith promises will not fail to appear. In a

formula: "I believe that faith makes for blessedness--_therefore_, it is

true."... But this is as far as we may go. This "therefore" would be

_absurdum_ itself as a criterion of truth.--But let us admit, for the

sake of politeness, that blessedness by faith may be demonstrated

(--_not_ merely hoped for, and _not_ merely promised by the suspicious

lips of a priest): even so, _could_ blessedness--in a technical term,

_pleasure_--ever be a proof of truth? So little is this true that it is

almost a proof against truth when sensations of pleasure influence the

answer to the question "What is true?" or, at all events, it is enough

to make that "truth" highly suspicious. The proof by "pleasure" is a

proof _of_ "pleasure"--nothing more; why in the world should it be

assumed that _true_ judgments give more pleasure than false ones, and

that, in conformity to some pre-established harmony, they necessarily

bring agreeable feelings in their train?--The experience of all

disciplined and profound minds teaches _the contrary_. Man has had to

fight for every atom of the truth, and has had to pay for it almost

everything that the heart, that human love, that human trust cling to.

Greatness of soul is needed for this business: the service of truth is

the hardest of all services.--What, then, is the meaning of _integrity_

in things intellectual? It means that a man must be severe with his own

heart, that he must scorn "beautiful feelings," and that he makes every

Yea and Nay a matter of conscience!--Faith makes blessed: _therefore_,

it lies....

51.

The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for

blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an _idee fixe_ by no

means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves

no mountains, but instead _raises them up_ where there were none before:

all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a _lunatic

asylum_. _Not_, of course, to a priest: for his instincts prompt him to

the lie that sickness is not sickness and lunatic asylums not lunatic

asylums. Christianity finds sickness _necessary_, just as the Greek

spirit had need of a superabundance of health--the actual ulterior

purpose of the whole system of salvation of the church is to _make_

people ill. And the church itself--doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic

asylum as the ultimate ideal?--The whole earth as a madhouse?--The sort

of religious man that the church _wants_ is a typical _decadent_; the

moment at which a religious crisis dominates a people is always marked

by epidemics of nervous disorder; the "inner world" of the religious man

is so much like the "inner world" of the overstrung and exhausted that

it is difficult to distinguish between them; the "highest" states of

mind, held up before mankind by Christianity as of supreme worth, are

actually epileptoid in form--the church has granted the name of holy

only to lunatics or to gigantic frauds _in majorem dei honorem_.... Once

I ventured to designate the whole Christian system of _training_[22] in

penance and salvation (now best studied in England) as a method of

producing a _folie circulaire_ upon a soil already prepared for it,

which is to say, a soil thoroughly unhealthy. Not every one may be a

Christian: one is not "converted" to Christianity--one must first

be sick enough for it.... We others, who have the _courage_ for health

_and_ likewise for contempt,--we may well despise a religion that

teaches misunderstanding of the body! that refuses to rid itself of the

superstition about the soul! that makes a "virtue" of insufficient

nourishment! that combats health as a sort of enemy, devil, temptation!

that persuades itself that it is possible to carry about a "perfect

soul" in a cadaver of a body, and that, to this end, had to devise for

itself a new concept of "perfection," a pale, sickly, idiotically

ecstatic state of existence, so-called "holiness"--a holiness that is

itself merely a series of symptoms of an impoverished, enervated and

incurably disordered body!... The Christian movement, as a European

movement, was from the start no more than a general uprising of all

sorts of outcast and refuse elements (--who now, under cover of

Christianity, aspire to power). It does _not_ represent the decay of a

race; it represents, on the contrary, a conglomeration of _decadence_

products from all directions, crowding together and seeking one another

out. It was _not_, as has been thought, the corruption of antiquity, of

_noble_ antiquity, which made Christianity possible; one cannot too

sharply challenge the learned imbecility which today maintains that

theory. At the time when the sick and rotten Chandala classes in the

whole _imperium_ were Christianized, the _contrary type_, the nobility,

reached its finest and ripest development. The majority became master;

democracy, with its Christian instincts, _triumphed_.... Christianity

was not "national," it was not based on race--it appealed to all the

varieties of men disinherited by life, it had its allies everywhere.

Christianity has the rancour of the sick at its very core--the instinct

against the _healthy_, against _health_. Everything that is

well-constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence

to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you of Paul's priceless saying:

"And God hath chosen the _weak_ things of the world, the _foolish_

things of the world, the _base_ things of the world, and things which

are _despised_":[23] _this_ was the formula; _in hoc signo_ the

_decadence_ triumphed.--_God on the cross_--is man always to miss the

frightful inner significance of this symbol?--Everything that suffers,

everything that hangs on the cross, is _divine_.... We all hang on the

cross, consequently _we_ are divine.... We alone are divine....

Christianity was thus a victory: a nobler attitude of mind was destroyed

by it--Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of

humanity.--

[22] The word _training_ is in English in the text.

[23] 1 Corinthians i, 27, 28.

52.

Christianity also stands in opposition to all _intellectual_

well-being,--sick reasoning is the only sort that it _can_ use as

Christian reasoning; it takes the side of everything that is idiotic; it

pronounces a curse upon "intellect," upon the _superbia_ of the healthy

intellect. Since sickness is inherent in Christianity, it follows that

the typically Christian state of "faith" _must_ be a form of sickness

too, and that all straight, straightforward and scientific paths to

knowledge _must_ be banned by the church as _forbidden_ ways. Doubt is

thus a sin from the start.... The complete lack of psychological

cleanliness in the priest--revealed by a glance at him--is a phenomenon

_resulting_ from _decadence_,--one may observe in hysterical women and

in rachitic children how regularly the falsification of instincts,

delight in lying for the mere sake of lying, and incapacity for looking

straight and walking straight are symptoms of _decadence_. "Faith"

means the will to avoid knowing what is true. The pietist, the priest of

either sex, is a fraud _because_ he is sick: his instinct _demands_ that

the truth shall never be allowed its rights on any point. "Whatever

makes for illness is _good_; whatever issues from abundance, from

superabundance, from power, is _evil_": so argues the believer. The

_impulse to lie_--it is by this that I recognize every foreordained

theologian.--Another characteristic of the theologian is his _unfitness

for philology_. What I here mean by philology is, in a general sense,

the art of reading with profit--the capacity for absorbing facts

_without_ interpreting them falsely, and _without_ losing caution,

patience and subtlety in the effort to understand them. Philology as

_ephexis_[24] in interpretation: whether one be dealing with books, with

newspaper reports, with the most fateful events or with weather

statistics--not to mention the "salvation of the soul."... The way in

which a theologian, whether in Berlin or in Rome, is ready to explain,

say, a "passage of Scripture," or an experience, or a victory by the

national army, by turning upon it the high illumination of the Psalms of

David, is always so _daring_ that it is enough to make a philologian run

up a wall. But what shall he do when pietists and other such cows from

Suabia[25] use the "finger of God" to convert their miserably

commonplace and huggermugger existence into a miracle of "grace," a

"providence" and an "experience of salvation"? The most modest exercise

of the intellect, not to say of decency, should certainly be enough to

convince these interpreters of the perfect childishness and unworthiness

of such a misuse of the divine digital dexterity. However small our

piety, if we ever encountered a god who always cured us of a cold in the

head at just the right time, or got us into our carriage at the very

instant heavy rain began to fall, he would seem so absurd a god that

he'd have to be abolished even if he existed. God as a domestic servant,

as a letter carrier, as an almanac-man--at bottom, he is a mere name for

the stupidest sort of chance.... "Divine Providence," which every third

man in "educated Germany" still believes in, is so strong an argument

against God that it would be impossible to think of a stronger. And in

any case it is an argument against Germans!...

[24] That is, to say, scepticism. Among the Greeks scepticism was also

occasionally called ephecticism.

[25] A reference to the University of Tuebingen and its famous school of

Biblical criticism. The leader of this school was F. C. Baur, and one of

the men greatly influenced by it was Nietzsche's pet abomination, David

F. Strauss, himself a Suabian. _Vide_ Sec. 10 and Sec. 28.

53.

--It is so little true that _martyrs_ offer any support to the truth of

a cause that I am inclined to deny that any martyr has ever had anything

to do with the truth at all. In the very tone in which a martyr flings

what he fancies to be true at the head of the world there appears so low

a grade of intellectual honesty and such _insensibility_ to the problem

of "truth," that it is never necessary to refute him. Truth is not

something that one man has and another man has not: at best, only

peasants, or peasant-apostles like Luther, can think of truth in any

such way. One may rest assured that the greater the degree of a man's

intellectual conscience the greater will be his modesty, his

_discretion_, on this point. To _know_ in five cases, and to refuse,

with delicacy, to know anything _further_.... "Truth," as the word is

understood by every prophet, every sectarian, every free-thinker, every

Socialist and every churchman, is simply a complete proof that not even

a beginning has been made in the intellectual discipline and

self-control that are necessary to the unearthing of even the smallest

truth.--The deaths of the martyrs, it may be said in passing, have been

misfortunes of history: they have _misled_.... The conclusion that all

idiots, women and plebeians come to, that there must be something in a

cause for which any one goes to his death (or which, as under primitive

Christianity, sets off epidemics of death-seeking)--this conclusion has

been an unspeakable drag upon the testing of facts, upon the whole

spirit of inquiry and investigation. The martyrs have _damaged_ the

truth.... Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to

give an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism.--But

why? Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid

down his life for it?--An error that becomes honourable is simply an

error that has acquired one seductive charm the more: do you suppose,

Messrs. Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred

for your lies?--One best disposes of a cause by respectfully putting it

on ice--that is also the best way to dispose of theologians.... This was

precisely the world-historical stupidity of all the persecutors: that

they gave the appearance of honour to the cause they opposed--that they

made it a present of the fascination of martyrdom.... Women are still on

their knees before an error because they have been told that some one

died on the cross for it. _Is the cross, then, an argument?_--But about

all these things there is one, and one only, who has said what has been

needed for thousands of years--_Zarathustra_.

     They made signs in blood along the way that they went, and their

     folly taught them that the truth is proved by blood.

     But blood is the worst of all testimonies to the truth; blood

     poisoneth even the purest teaching and turneth it into madness and

     hatred in the heart.

     And when one goeth through fire for his teaching--what doth that

     prove? Verily, it is more when one's teaching cometh out of one's

     own burning![26]

[26] The quotations are from "Also sprach Zarathustra" ii, 24: "Of

Priests."

54.

Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical.

Zarathustra is a sceptic. The strength, the _freedom_ which proceed from

intellectual power, from a superabundance of intellectual power,

_manifest_ themselves as scepticism. Men of fixed convictions do not

count when it comes to determining what is fundamental in values and

lack of values. Men of convictions are prisoners. They do not see far

enough, they do not see what is _below_ them: whereas a man who would

talk to any purpose about value and non-value must be able to see five

hundred convictions _beneath_ him--and _behind_ him.... A mind that

aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is

necessarily sceptical. Freedom from any sort of conviction _belongs_ to

strength, and to an independent point of view.... That grand passion

which is at once the foundation and the power of a sceptic's existence,

and is both more enlightened and more despotic than he is himself,

drafts the whole of his intellect into its service; it makes him

unscrupulous; it gives him courage to employ unholy means; under certain

circumstances it does not _begrudge_ him even convictions. Conviction as

a means: one may achieve a good deal by means of a conviction. A grand

passion makes use of and uses up convictions; it does not yield to

them--it knows itself to be sovereign.--On the contrary, the need of

faith, of something unconditioned by yea or nay, of Carlylism, if I may

be allowed the word, is a need of _weakness_. The man of faith, the

"believer" of any sort, is necessarily a dependent man--such a man

cannot posit _himself_ as a goal, nor can he find goals within himself.

The "believer" does not belong to himself; he can only be a means to an

end; he must be _used up_; he needs some one to use him up. His instinct

gives the highest honours to an ethic of self-effacement; he is prompted

to embrace it by everything: his prudence, his experience, his vanity.

Every sort of faith is in itself an evidence of self-effacement, of

self-estrangement.... When one reflects how necessary it is to the great

majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and

hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense,

_slavery_, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being

of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once

understands conviction and "faith." To the man with convictions they are

his backbone. To _avoid_ seeing many things, to be impartial about

nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values

strictly and infallibly--these are conditions necessary to the existence

of such a man. But by the same token they are _antagonists_ of the

truthful man--of the truth.... The believer is not free to answer the

question, "true" or "not true," according to the dictates of his own

conscience: integrity on _this_ point would work his instant downfall.

The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions

into a fanatic--Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre,

Saint-Simon--these types stand in opposition to the strong,

_emancipated_ spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these _sick_

intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the

great masses--fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing

poses to listening to _reasons_....

55.

--One step further in the psychology of conviction, of "faith." It is

now a good while since I first proposed for consideration the question

whether convictions are not even more dangerous enemies to truth than

lies. ("Human, All-Too-Human," I, aphorism 483.)[27] This time I desire

to put the question definitely: is there any actual difference between

a lie and a conviction?--All the world believes that there is; but what

is not believed by all the world!--Every conviction has its history, its

primitive forms, its stage of tentativeness and error: it _becomes_ a

conviction only after having been, for a long time, _not_ one, and then,

for an even longer time, _hardly_ one. What if falsehood be also one of

these embryonic forms of conviction?--Sometimes all that is needed is a

change in persons: what was a lie in the father becomes a conviction in

the son.--I call it lying to refuse to see what one sees, or to refuse

to see it _as_ it is: whether the lie be uttered before witnesses or not

before witnesses is of no consequence. The most common sort of lie is

that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a

relatively rare offence.--Now, this will _not_ to see what one sees,

this will _not_ to see it as it is, is almost the first requisite for

all who belong to a party of whatever sort: the party man becomes

inevitably a liar. For example, the German historians are convinced that

Rome was synonymous with despotism and that the Germanic peoples brought

the spirit of liberty into the world: what is the difference between

this conviction and a lie? Is it to be wondered at that all partisans,

including the German historians, instinctively roll the fine phrases of

morality upon their tongues--that morality almost owes its very

_survival_ to the fact that the party man of every sort has need of it

every moment?--"This is _our_ conviction: we publish it to the whole

world; we live and die for it--let us respect all who have

convictions!"--I have actually heard such sentiments from the mouths of

anti-Semites. On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not

become more respectable because he lies on principle.... The priests,

who have more finesse in such matters, and who well understand the

objection that lies against the notion of a conviction, which is to say,

of a falsehood that becomes a matter of principle _because_ it serves a

purpose, have borrowed from the Jews the shrewd device of sneaking in

the concepts, "God," "the will of God" and "the revelation of God" at

this place. Kant, too, with his categorical imperative, was on the same

road: this was his _practical_ reason.[28] There are questions regarding

the truth or untruth of which it is _not_ for man to decide; all the

capital questions, all the capital problems of valuation, are beyond

human reason.... To know the limits of reason--_that_ alone is genuine

philosophy.... Why did God make a revelation to man? Would God have done

anything superfluous? Man _could_ not find out for himself what was good

and what was evil, so God taught him His will.... Moral: the priest does

_not_ lie--the question, "true" or "untrue," has nothing to do with such

things as the priest discusses; it is impossible to lie about these

things. In order to lie here it would be necessary to know _what_ is

true. But this is more than man _can_ know; therefore, the priest is

simply the mouthpiece of God.--Such a priestly syllogism

is by no means merely Jewish and Christian; the right to lie and the

_shrewd dodge_ of "revelation" belong to the general priestly type--to

the priest of the _decadence_ as well as to the priest of pagan times

(--Pagans are all those who say yes to life, and to whom "God" is a word

signifying acquiescence in all things).--The "law," the "will of God,"

the "holy book," and "inspiration"--all these things are merely words

for the conditions _under_ which the priest comes to power and _with_

which he maintains his power,--these concepts are to be found at the

bottom of all priestly organizations, and of all priestly or

priestly-philosophical schemes of governments. The "holy lie"--common

alike to Confucius, to the Code of Manu, to Mohammed and to the

Christian church--is not even wanting in Plato. "Truth is here": this

means, no matter where it is heard, _the priest lies_....

[27] The aphorism, which is headed "The Enemies of Truth," makes the

direct statement: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than

lies."

[28] A reference, of course, to Kant's "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft"

(Critique of Practical Reason).

56.

--In the last analysis it comes to this: what is the _end_ of lying? The

fact that, in Christianity, "holy" ends are not visible is _my_

objection to the means it employs. Only _bad_ ends appear: the

poisoning, the calumniation, the denial of life, the despising of the

body, the degradation and self-contamination of man by the concept of

sin--_therefore_, its means are also bad.--I have a contrary feeling

when I read the Code of Manu, an incomparably more intellectual and

superior work, which it would be a sin against the _intelligence_ to so

much as _name_ in the same breath with the Bible. It is easy to see why:

there is a genuine philosophy behind it, _in_ it, not merely an

evil-smelling mess of Jewish rabbinism and superstition,--it gives even

the most fastidious psychologist something to sink his teeth into. And,

_not_ to forget what is most important, it differs fundamentally from

every kind of Bible: by means of it the _nobles_, the philosophers and

the warriors keep the whip-hand over the majority; it is full of noble

valuations, it shows a feeling of perfection, an acceptance of life, and

triumphant feeling toward self and life--the _sun_ shines upon the whole

book.--All the things on which Christianity vents its fathomless

vulgarity--for example, procreation, women and marriage--are here

handled earnestly, with reverence and with love and confidence. How can

any one really put into the hands of children and ladies a book which

contains such vile things as this: "to avoid fornication, let every man

have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; ... it is

better to marry than to burn"?[29] And is it _possible_ to be a

Christian so long as the origin of man is Christianized, which is to

say, _befouled_, by the doctrine of the _immaculata conceptio_?... I

know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said of

women as in the Code of Manu; these old grey-beards and saints have a

way of being gallant to women that it would be impossible, perhaps, to

surpass. "The mouth of a woman," it says in one place, "the breasts of a

maiden, the prayer of a child and the smoke of sacrifice are always

pure." In another place: "there is nothing purer than the light of the

sun, the shadow cast by a cow, air, water, fire and the breath of a

maiden." Finally, in still another place--perhaps this is also a holy

lie--: "all the orifices of the body above the navel are pure, and all

below are impure. Only in the maiden is the whole body pure."

[29] 1 Corinthians vii, 2, 9.

57.

One catches the _unholiness_ of Christian means _in flagranti_ by the

simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the

ends sought by the Code of Manu--by putting these enormously

antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity

cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity _contemptible_.--A

book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other

good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the

ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a

conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of

this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the

authority of a slowly and painfully attained _truth_ are fundamentally

different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book

never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a

law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the "thou

shall," on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.--At

a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the

greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight,

declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall

live--or _can_ live--has come to an end. The object now is to reap as

rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment

and _hard_ experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided

above everything is further experimentation--the continuation of the

state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized

_ad infinitum_. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand,

_revelation_, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the

laws are _not_ of human origin, that they were _not_ sought out and

found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of

divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a

history, as a free gift, a miracle...; and on the other hand,

_tradition_, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged

from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one's

forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus

grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers _lived_ it.--The

higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract

consciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right

living (that is to say, those that have been _proved_ to be right by

wide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a

perfect automatism--a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to

every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book

as Manu's means to lay before a people the possibility of future

mastery, of attainable perfection--it permits them to aspire to the

highest reaches of the art of life. _To that end the thing must be made

unconscious_: that is the aim of every holy lie.--The _order of castes_,

the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an _order

of nature_, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary

fiat, no "modern idea," can exert any influence. In every healthy

society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward

differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these

has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and

feeling of perfection. It is _not_ Manu but nature that sets off in one

class those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are

marked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who

are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only

mediocrity--the last-named represents the great majority, and the first

two the select. The superior caste--I call it the _fewest_--has, as the

most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for

beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of

men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can

goodness escape being weakness. _Pulchrum est paucorum hominum_:[30]

goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than

uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees

_ugliness_--or indignation against the general aspect of things.

Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. "_The

world is perfect_"--so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the

instinct of the man who says yes to life. "Imperfection, whatever is

_inferior_ to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala

themselves are parts of this perfection." The most intelligent men, like

the _strongest_, find their happiness where others would find only

disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with

others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism

becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult

task as a privilege; it is to them a _recreation_ to play with burdens

that would crush all others.... Knowledge--a form of asceticism.--They

are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them

being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they

want to, but because they _are_; they are not at liberty to play

second.--The _second caste_: to this belong the guardians of the law,

the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all,

the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law.

The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals,

the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is _rough_ in the

business of ruling--their followers, their right hand, their most apt

disciples.--In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing

"made up"; whatever is to the _contrary_ is made up--by it nature is

brought to shame.... The order of castes, the _order of rank_, simply

formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three

types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution

of higher types, and the highest types--the _inequality_ of rights is

essential to the existence of any rights at all.--A right is a

privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of

existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the _mediocre_.

Life is always harder as one mounts the _heights_--the cold increases,

responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand

only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly

consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture,

_science_, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of

_occupational_ activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and

aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the

instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as

to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a

wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not

_society_, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable

of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is

a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one

thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound

intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is,

in fact, the _first_ prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional:

it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the

exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than

he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of

heart--it is simply his _duty_.... Whom do I hate most heartily among

the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the

Chandala, who undermine the workingman's instincts, his pleasure, his

feeling of contentment with his petty existence--who make him envious

and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in

the assertion of "equal" rights.... What is _bad_? But I have already

answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from

_revenge_.--The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

[30] Few men are noble.

58.

In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference:

whether one preserves thereby or destroys. There is a perfect likeness

between Christian and anarchist: their object, their instinct, points

only toward destruction. One need only turn to history for a proof of

this: there it appears with appalling distinctness. We have just studied

a code of religious legislation whose object it was to convert the

conditions which cause life to _flourish_ into an "eternal" social

organization,--Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such

an organization, _because life flourished under it_. There the benefits

that reason had produced during long ages of experiment and insecurity

were applied to the most remote uses, and an effort was made to bring in

a harvest that should be as large, as rich and as complete as possible;

here, on the contrary, the harvest is _blighted_ overnight.... That

which stood there _aere perennis_, the _imperium Romanum_, the most

magnificent form of organization under difficult conditions that has

ever been achieved, and compared to which everything before it and after

it appears as patchwork, bungling, _dilletantism_--those holy anarchists

made it a matter of "piety" to destroy "the world," _which is to say_,

the _imperium Romanum_, so that in the end not a stone stood upon

another--and even Germans and other such louts were able to become its

masters.... The Christian and the anarchist: both are _decadents_; both

are incapable of any act that is not disintegrating, poisonous,

degenerating, _blood-sucking_; both have an instinct of _mortal hatred_

of everything that stands up, and is great, and has durability, and

promises life a future.... Christianity was the vampire of the _imperium

Romanum_,--overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans:

the conquest of the soil for a great culture _that could await its

time_. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The _imperium

Romanum_ that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces

teaches us to know better and better,--this most admirable of all works

of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure

to follow was not to _prove_ its worth for thousands of years. To this

day, nothing on a like scale _sub specie aeterni_ has been brought into

being, or even dreamed of!--This organization was strong enough to

withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do

with such things--the _first_ principle of all genuinely great

architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the

_corruptest_ of all forms of corruption--against Christians.... These

stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity,

crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in

_real_ things, of all instinct for _reality_--this cowardly, effeminate

and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all "souls," step by step,

from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious,

manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own

cause, their own serious purpose, their own _pride_. The sneakishness of

hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell,

such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the _unio mystica_ in the

drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of

Chandala revenge--all _that_ sort of thing became master of Rome: the

same kind of religion which, in a pre-existent form, Epicurus had

combatted. One has but to read Lucretius to know _what_ Epicurus made

war upon--_not_ paganism, but "Christianity," which is to say, the

corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and

immortality.--He combatted the _subterranean_ cults, the whole of latent

Christianity--to deny immortality was already a form of genuine

_salvation_.--Epicurus had triumphed, and every respectable intellect in

Rome was Epicurean--_when Paul appeared_ ... Paul, the Chandala hatred

of Rome, of "the world," in the flesh and inspired by genius--the Jew,

the _eternal_ Jew _par excellence_.... What he saw was how, with the aid

of the small sectarian Christian movement that stood apart from Judaism,

a "world conflagration" might be kindled; how, with the symbol of "God

on the cross," all secret seditions, all the fruits of anarchistic

intrigues in the empire, might be amalgamated into one immense power.

"Salvation is of the Jews."--Christianity is the formula for exceeding

_and_ summing up the subterranean cults of all varieties, that of

Osiris, that of the Great Mother, that of Mithras, for instance: in his

discernment of this fact the genius of Paul showed itself. His instinct

was here so sure that, with reckless violence to the truth, he put the

ideas which lent fascination to every sort of Chandala religion into the

mouth of the "Saviour" as his own inventions, and not only into the

mouth--he _made_ out of him something that even a priest of Mithras

could understand.... This was his revelation at Damascus: he grasped the

fact that he _needed_ the belief in immortality in order to rob "the

world" of its value, that the concept of "hell" would master Rome--that

the notion of a "beyond" is the _death of life_.... Nihilist and

Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme....

59.

The whole labour of the ancient world gone for _naught_: I have no word

to describe the feelings that such an enormity arouses in me.--And,

considering the fact that its labour was merely preparatory, that with

adamantine self-consciousness it laid only the foundations for a work to

go on for thousands of years, the whole _meaning_ of antiquity

disappears!... To what end the Greeks? to what end the Romans?--All the

prerequisites to a learned culture, all the _methods_ of science, were

already there; man had already perfected the great and incomparable art

of reading profitably--that first necessity to the tradition of

culture, the unity of the sciences; the natural sciences, in alliance

with mathematics and mechanics, were on the right road,--_the sense of

fact_, the last and more valuable of all the senses, had its schools,

and its traditions were already centuries old! Is all this properly

understood? Every _essential_ to the beginning of the work was

ready:--and the _most_ essential, it cannot be said too often, are

methods, and also the most difficult to develop, and the longest opposed

by habit and laziness. What we have today reconquered, with unspeakable

self-discipline, for ourselves--for certain bad instincts, certain

Christian instincts, still lurk in our bodies--that is to say, the keen

eye for reality, the cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the

smallest things, the whole _integrity_ of knowledge--all these things

were already there, and had been there for two thousand years! _More_,

there was also a refined and excellent tact and taste! _Not_ as mere

brain-drilling! _Not_ as "German" culture, with its loutish manners! But

as body, as bearing, as instinct--in short, as reality.... _All gone for

naught!_ Overnight it became merely a memory!--The Greeks! The Romans!

Instinctive nobility, taste, methodical inquiry, genius for organization

and administration, faith in and the _will_ to secure the future of man,

a great yes to everything entering into the _imperium Romanum_ and

palpable to all the senses, a grand style that was beyond mere art, but

had become reality, truth, _life_....--All overwhelmed in a night, but

not by a convulsion of nature! Not trampled to death by Teutons and

others of heavy hoof! But brought to shame by crafty, sneaking,

invisible, anaemic vampires! Not conquered,--only sucked dry!... Hidden

vengefulness, petty envy, became _master_! Everything wretched,

intrinsically ailing, and invaded by bad feelings, the whole

_ghetto-world_ of the soul, was at once _on top_!--One needs but read

any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to

realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top. It

would be an error, however, to assume that there was any lack of

understanding in the leaders of the Christian movement:--ah, but they

were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the

church! What they lacked was something quite different. Nature

neglected--perhaps forgot--to give them even the most modest endowment

of respectable, of upright, of _cleanly_ instincts.... Between

ourselves, they are not even men.... If Islam despises Christianity, it

has a thousandfold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is

dealing with _men_....

60.

Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization,

and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of _Mohammedan_

civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was

fundamentally nearer to _us_ and appealed more to our senses and tastes

than that of Rome and Greece, was _trampled down_ (--I do not say by

what sort of feet--) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly

instincts for its origin--because it said yes to life, even to the rare

and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made

war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them

to have grovelled in the dust--a civilization beside which even that of

our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile."--What they

wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich.... Let us put aside

our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more!

The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in

its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility

was to be _won_.... The German noble, always the "Swiss guard" of the

church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church--_but

well paid_.... Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German

swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry

through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this

point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German

nobility stands _outside_ the history of the higher civilization: the

reason is obvious.... Christianity, alcohol--the two _great_ means of

corruption.... Intrinsically there should be no more choice between

Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The

decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here.

Either a man is a Chandala or he is not.... "War to the knife with Rome!

Peace and friendship with Islam!": this was the feeling, this was the

_act_, of that great free spirit, that genius among German emperors,

Frederick II. What! must a German first be a genius, a free spirit,

before he can feel _decently_? I can't make out how a German could ever

feel _Christian_....

61.

Here it becomes necessary to call up a memory that must be a hundred

times more painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed for Europe the

last great harvest of civilization that Europe was ever to reap--the

_Renaissance_. Is it understood at last, _will_ it ever be understood,

_what_ the Renaissance was? _The transvaluation of Christian

values_,--an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the

resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the _opposite_ values,

the more _noble_ values.... This has been the one great war of the past;

there has never been a more critical question than that of the

Renaissance--it is _my_ question too--; there has never been a form of

_attack_ more fundamental, more direct, or more violently delivered by a

whole front upon the center of the enemy! To attack at the critical

place, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more

noble values--that is to say, to _insinuate_ them into the instincts,

into the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there ...

I see before me the _possibility_ of a perfectly heavenly enchantment

and spectacle:--it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of

a fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so

infernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years

for another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance

and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should

arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter--_Caesar Borgia as

pope!_... Am I understood?... Well then, _that_ would have been the

sort of triumph that _I_ alone am longing for today--: by it

Christianity would have been _swept away_!--What happened? A German

monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts

of an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion _against_ the

Renaissance in Rome.... Instead of grasping, with profound thanksgiving,

the miracle that had taken place: the conquest of Christianity at its

_capital_--instead of this, his hatred was stimulated by the spectacle.

A religious man thinks only of himself.--Luther saw only the _depravity_

of the papacy at the very moment when the opposite was becoming

apparent: the old corruption, the _peccatum originale_, Christianity

itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life!

Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to

all lofty, beautiful and daring things!... And Luther _restored the

church_: he attacked it.... The Renaissance--an event without meaning, a

great futility!--Ah, these Germans, what they have not cost us!

_Futility_--that has always been the work of the Germans.--The

Reformation; Leibnitz; Kant and so-called German philosophy; the war

of "liberation"; the empire--every time a futile substitute for

something that once existed, for something _irrecoverable_.... These

Germans, I confess, are my enemies: I despise all their uncleanliness

in concept and valuation, their cowardice before every honest yea

and nay. For nearly a thousand years they have tangled and confused

everything their fingers have touched; they have on their conscience

all the half-way measures, all the three-eighths-way measures, that

Europe is sick of,--they also have on their conscience the uncleanest

variety of Christianity that exists, and the most incurable and

indestructible--Protestantism.... If mankind never manages to get rid

of Christianity the _Germans_ will be to blame....

62.

--With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I

_condemn_ Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most

terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his

mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it

seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption.

The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has

turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and

every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me

of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it

against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it

_creates_ distress to make _itself_ immortal.... For example, the worm

of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this

misery!--The "equality of souls before God"--this fraud, this _pretext_

for the _rancunes_ of all the base-minded--this explosive concept,

ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing

the whole social order--this is _Christian_ dynamite.... The

"humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of

_humanitas_ a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to

lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest

instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of

Christianity!--Parasitism as the _only_ practice of the church; with its

anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the

hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross

as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever

heard of,--against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, _kindness_ of

soul--_against life itself_....

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all

walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the

blind will be able to see.... I call Christianity the one great curse,

the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge,

for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and

_small_ enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human

race....

And mankind reckons _time_ from the _dies nefastus_ when this fatality

befell--from the _first_ day of Christianity!--_Why not rather from its

last?_--_From today?_--The transvaluation of all values!...

THE END

End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Antichrist, by F. W. Nietzsche

*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ANTICHRIST ***

***** This file should be named 19322.txt or 19322.zip *****

This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:

        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/3/2/19322/

Produced by Laura Wisewell and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no

one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation

(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without

permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,

set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to

copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to

protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project

Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you

charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you

do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the

rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose

such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and

research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do

practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is

subject to the trademark license, especially commercial

redistribution.

*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work

(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project

Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project

Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at

http://gutenberg.org/license).

Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic works

1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to

and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property

(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all

the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy

all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.

If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the

terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or

entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who

agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few

things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works

even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See

paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement

and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"

or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the

collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an

individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from

copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative

works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg

are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project

Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by

freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of

this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with

the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by

keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project

Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern

what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in

a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check

the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement

before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or

creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project

Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning

the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United

States.

1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate

access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently

whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the

phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project

Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,

copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived

from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is

posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied

and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees

or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work

with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the

work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1

through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the

Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or

1.E.9.

1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution

must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional

terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked

to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the

permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm

License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this

work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without

prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with

active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project

Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,

compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any

word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or

distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than

"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version

posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),

you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a

copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon

request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other

form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm

License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works

unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided

that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from

     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method

     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is

     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he

     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the

     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments

     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you

     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax

     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and

     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the

     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to

     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies

     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he

     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm

     License.  You must require such a user to return or

     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium

     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of

     Project Gutenberg-tm works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any

     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the

     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days

     of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free

     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set

forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from

both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael

Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the

Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable

effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread

public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm

collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain

"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or

corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual

property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a

computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by

your equipment.

1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right

of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project

Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project

Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all

liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal

fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT

LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE

PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE

TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE

LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR

INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGE.

1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a

defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can

receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a

written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you

received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with

your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with

the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a

refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity

providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to

receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy

is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further

opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth

in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER

WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.

If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the

law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be

interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by

the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any

provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the

trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone

providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance

with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,

promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,

harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,

that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do

or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm

work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any

Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of

electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers

including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists

because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from

people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's

goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will

remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure

and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.

To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4

and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive

Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit

501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the

state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal

Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification

number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at

http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent

permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.

Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered

throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at

809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email

business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact

information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official

page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:

     Dr. Gregory B. Newby

     Chief Executive and Director

     gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg

Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide

spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of

increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be

freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest

array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations

($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt

status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United

States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a

considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up

with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations

where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To

SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any

particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we

have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition

against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who

approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from

outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation

methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other

ways including checks, online payments and credit card

donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate

Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm

concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared

with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project

Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.

unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily

keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

     http://www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary

Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to

subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

*** END: FULL LICENSE ***

On divestment

    It seems to me that Israel is, indeed, following the path that South Africa took.  Their apartheid led to a new, single-state.  With the bombings today in Gaza and who knows what is to follow, a single state, secular, solution, will occur by default.

    The following is an open letter to the Students at Berkeley who are proposing divestment, the same thing that happened to South Africa in the 80s.  It is by Naomi Klein:

Open Letter to Berkeley Students on their Historic Israeli Divestment Bill

By Naomi Klein

March 31, 2010

On March 18, continuing a long tradition of pioneering human rights campaigns, the Senate of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley (ASUC) passed "A Bill In Support of UC DIVESTMENT FROM WAR CRIMES." The historic bill resolves to divest ASUC's assets from two American companies, General Electric and United Technologies, that are "materially and militarily supporting the Israeli government's occupation of the Palestinian territories"--and to advocate that the UC, with about $135 million invested in companies that profit from Israel's illegal actions in the Occupied Territories, follow suit. Although the bill passed by a vote of 16-4 after a packed and intense debate, the President of the Senate vetoed the bill six days later. The Senate is expected to reconsider the bill soon; groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace are asking supporters of the bill to send letters to the Senators, who can overturn the veto with only fourteen votes.

Share this article

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  

• Related
• Also By

• 
  
  

  Slide Show: Students Protest Education Cuts

  Activism & Organizing
  With the economy struggling to recover, funding for public higher education has taken an inevitable hit. But across the country, students are saying: Think twice before depriving us, and your state, of our futures.
  
• 
  
  

  Noted.

  Afghanistan War
  A how-to for taking action on Afghanistan.
  

» More

• 
  
  

  Open Letter to Berkeley Students on their Historic Israeli Divestment Bill

  Education Reform
  Naomi Klein: When it comes to acting to end Israeli war crimes, the international response has not suffered from too much haste but from far too little.
  
• 
  
  

  Chile's Socialist Rebar

  Chile
  Naomi Klein: It is Chile's democratic, socialist roots, not the free-marketers who prevailed after Pinochet's coup, that are to thank for the strict building codes that have protected citizens from the earthquake.
  
• 
  
  

  Haiti: A Creditor, Not a Debtor

  Haiti
  Naomi Klein: It is we in the West who owe it reparations.
  

Here is the letter I just sent:
Dear members of the ASUC Senate,
I am writing to urge you to reaffirm Senate Bill 118A, despite the recent presidential veto.
It comes as no surprise that you are under intense pressure to reverse your historic and democratic decision to divest from two companies that profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. When a school with a deserved reputation for academic excellence and moral leadership takes such a bold position, it threatens to inspire others to take their own stands.
Indeed, Berkeley--the campus and the wider community--has provided this kind of leadership on many key issues in the past: not only Apartheid in South Africa but also sweatshops in Indonesia, dictatorship in Burma, political killings in Nigeria, and the list goes on. Time and again, when the call for international solidarity has come from people denied a political voice, Berkeley has been among the first to answer. And in virtually every case, what began as a small action in a progressive community quickly spread across the country and around the world.
Your recent divestment bill opposing Israeli war crimes stands to have this same kind of global impact, helping to build a grassroots, non-violent movement to end Israel's violations of international law. And this is precisely what your opponents--by spreading deliberate lies about your actions--are desperately trying to prevent. They are even going so far as to claim that, in the future, there should be no divestment campaigns that target a specific country, a move that would rob activists of one of the most effective tools in the non-violent arsenal. Please don't give into this pressure; too much is on the line. As the world has just witnessed with the Netanyahu government's refusal to stop its illegal settlement expansion, political pressure is simply not enough to wrench Israel off its current disastrous path. And when our governments fail to apply sanctions for defiant illegality, other forms of pressure must come into play, including targeting those corporations that are profiting directly from human rights abuses. Whenever we take a political action, we open ourselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards, since the truth is that we can never do enough in the face of pervasive global injustice. Yet to argue that taking a clear stand against Israeli war crimes is somehow to "discriminate unfairly" against Israelis and Jews (as the veto seems to claim) is to grossly pervert the language of human rights. Far from "singling out Israel," with Senate Bill 118A, you are acting within Berkeley's commendable and inspiring tradition.
I understand that there is some debate about whether or not your divestment bill was adopted "in haste." Not having been there, I cannot comment on your process, though I am deeply impressed by the careful research that went into the decision. I also know that in 2005 an extraordinarily broad range of Palestinian civil society groups called on activists around the world to adopt precisely these kinds of peaceful pressure tactics. In the years since that call, we have all watched as Israeli abuses have escalated dramatically: the attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, a massive expansion of illegal settlements and walls, an ongoing siege on Gaza that violates all prohibitions on collective punishment, and, worst of all, the 2008/9 attack on Gaza that left approximately 1,400 dead.
I would humbly suggest that when it comes to acting to end Israeli war crimes, the international response has not suffered from too much haste but from far too little. This is a moment of great urgency, and the world is watching.
Be brave.
Yours sincerely,
Naomi Klein

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.

About Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002)

• Nation

An Art Exhibit -- Hugh Ralinovsky

These are all done by our sometime illustrator, Hugh Ralinovsky, this time unfettered by the topics of discussion.  It show more keenly what he is capable of.

Editor

The Latest Relevance -- Exhibit Coming Soon

   We will present the Art Exhibit next.  Those of you who visit this site regularly are familiar with the Jackson Pollack and Salividor Dali exhibits.  This one will be posted once and then available under ART EXHIBIT in the list of titles in the left column.  However, I wish to leave it as the last post for more than a day or two, so I am sending some b its of information along first.

At least 10 Congressmen have asked for extra security while they were still in Washington and that will continue with them.  There are more requests than that, however.  Violence is the highest form of debate known to these morons.

One of you pointed out the following:

"Washington DC: The United States' commitment to the security and future of Israel was rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a speech to AIPAC, an Israel lobby.

How about in the year 3000 AD, 4000 AD or...?  I mean, forever is a long long time....

Let's say Israel goes nuts and kills a hundred thousand Palestinians, they just killed 1400 last year. Are we still forever bound to them? 

What if their consequent exploits make Nazis look like pathetically misunderstood adolescents, are we still 'unwaveringly' with Israel?

Israel has nukes, hello, does anyone but me know that?  One bomb could make the Gaza Strip look like the Moon, with just as many inhabitants.

What an insane thing for a current US Sec'y of State to say, and nobody seems to have heard it except me."

We agree, and I hadn't heard it either.   Of course, Hillary is still with Bill "'Till death do us part," and even that is short of "Forever."

******************************

Another sent along the following information from Bart Stupak's office:

 

IMPACTS OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

Updated March 25, 2010

Consumer Protections for All Americans found in the health care legislation

strengthens consumer protections and provides the tools they need to make the best

health care insurance decision for them.

Beginning 90 days after enactment:

•

Provides access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a preexisting

condition, through a temporary high-risk pool.

Six months after date of enactment:

•

Insurance companies will be prohibited from canceling health coverage when a

beneficiary becomes sick as way of avoiding paying that person’s health care bills.

(This practice is also known as rescissions.)

•

All insurance plans will be prohibited from excluding children due to pre-existing

conditions.

•

Insurance companies will be required to allow adult dependent children to stay on

family policies until age 26, should the parents wish to do so.

•

Insurance companies would be prohibited from requiring prior authorization

before a woman sees an ob-gyn.

•

Ensures access to emergency care without a referral for all individuals.

•

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place lifetime caps on benefits.

Beginning in 2014:

•

Insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate on the basis of preexisting

conditions.

•

Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge higher premiums due to

gender, health status, family history or job occupation.

•

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place annual caps on benefits.

Women will receive expanded access to health care services.

•

Starting immediately, there will be an interim high-risk pool providing access to

coverage to those currently uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

•

Health care insurance reform will end discrimination against women by

prohibiting insurance companies from charging women more than men for the

same health care services.

•

In 2014, health insurance reform will make it against the law for insurance

companies to deny coverage or charge higher premiums on the basis of a “preexisting

condition,” such as C-sections and pregnancies.

•

Health insurance reform includes coverage of maternity services in the essential

benefits package in the new health insurance exchanges starting in 2014.

(continued on back)

Prepared by the Office of U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak

Veterans and military retirees are exempt from the bill, although Veterans will have the

option of participating in the exchange if they choose to do so. No other government

agency will be able to infringe on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ authority over the

TRICARE program.

Seniors/Medicare Beneficiaries will continue to have access to high quality, affordable

health care and keep their current coverage.

•

Effective immediately, it provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit

the donut hole in 2010. Beginning in 2011, the legislation institutes a 50 percent

discount on brand-name drugs for individuals who fall into the donut hole. The

donut hole is completely closed by 2020.

•

Beginning in 2011, the legislation eliminates co-payments for preventative

services such as mammography, colon and prostate screenings, diabetes screening

and bone mass measurements and it exempts preventative services from

deductibles under Medicare.

•

Requires Medicare Advantage plans to spend at least 85 percent of revenue on

medical care and improving quality of care, rather than on profit and overhead.

Plans will have three years to transition to the reformed payment system, with up

to seven years for counties facing more significant changes.

Small Business owners and their employees will have greater access to health care

coverage and tax credits to make it more affordable

•

Beginning immediately, small businesses that choose to offer health care

insurance will receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums, making

employee coverage more affordable. Beginning in 2014, the small business tax

credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.

•

Exempts employers with 50 or fewer employees from the employer responsibility

payments.

•

Reforms small business rating rules so that small employers will no longer pay

higher premiums if they have employees with higher health costs due to age or

illness.

•

In 2014 and later it provides eligible small employers who purchase coverage

through the Exchange with a tax credit for two years of up to 50 percent of their

contribution.

Prepared by the Office of U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING

HEALTH CARE REFORM LEGISLATION

Updated March 25, 2010

Question: Will health care reform force all Americans out of their private insurance plans and into a

government run plan?

Answer: No. If you like your insurance, nothing in the law requires you to change it. The Patient

Protection and Affordability Act builds on the employer based coverage we have today. If your employer

offers health coverage, you will continue to be able to receive coverage through them. If your employer

does not offer health coverage, beginning in 2014 you will be able to purchase health coverage through an

“exchange”, or one-stop clearinghouse, which will offer a variety of private health insurance plans.

Question: What is the exchange?

Answer: The exchange is a clearinghouse for all insurance plans. To be a part of it and compete for

customers, an insurance plan must contain a basic minimum of benefits such as prescription drugs,

pediatric services, preventative and wellness services and mental health and substance abuse services.

Information on coverage and benefits must be clearly listed beside each plan in easy-to-understand

language. The exchange will bring information that is currently scattered, giving consumers an

opportunity to make informed decisions about what plan works best for them. Beginning in 2014, each

state will have the option of setting up an exchange. If a state opts not to set up an exchange, the federal

government will set one up in its place.

Question: Will my Medicare coverage change?

Answer: The only changes in coverage Medicare beneficiaries will see are two significant improvements

to the program that seniors have long asked for. First, beginning in 2011, the bill will cover 100 percent

of the cost of preventative care, such as annual check-ups, mammograms and other preventive tests.

Second, the bill ensures that seniors will save money on their prescription drugs by phasing in a complete

fix for the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit (where drug costs are not reimbursed at

certain levels). This year, seniors who hit the donut hole will receive a $250 rebate check from the

federal government. The donut hole will be completely phased out in 2020.

Question: Does the bill eliminate my Medicare Advantage?

Answer: No. Currently the federal government is overpaying insurance companies that offer Medicare

Advantage plans by an average of 14 percent. The legislation will scale back these overpayments and

require Medicare Advantage plans to spend at least 85 percent of their revenue on clinical services and

activities that improve quality of care.

Question: Will my TRICARE or VA care change?

Answer: No. TRICARE and VA care are exempt from the legislation. The VA and TRICARE

programs will not be affected by the bill.

Question: Are members of Congress exempt from changes that are being proposed for the rest of the

country?

Answer: No. Members of Congress and their staff members must join the exchange.

Question: Will this plan lead to rationing of care?

Answer: No. Health care decisions should be between a patient and their doctor. The legislation

specifically forbids any studies or research from being used to either mandate or deny care to a patient.

The legislation significantly increases research funding to gather data about what procedures are most

effective in order to give doctors the best possible information when treating their patients.

(continued on back)

Prepared by the Office of U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak

Question: What if I can’t afford to purchase health insurance? Won’t it be mandatory under the

legislation?

Answer: Beginning in 2014, every American will be required to have health coverage. Medicare

recipients will continue to receive Medicare benefits, as will those receiving TRICARE and VA benefits.

The lowest income Americans will continue to receive Medicaid benefits. Those Americans who earn up

to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) will receive tax credits to help

them purchase insurance. Those closest to the poverty level will receive the most assistance, while those

closest to 400 percent will receive the least. Failure to purchase even the most basic health insurance

policy will result in a penalty of $95 per uninsured individual for 2014, $325 for 2015, $695 for 2016 and

subsequent years (or, up to 2.5 percent of income in 2016). Families will pay half the amount for children,

up to a cap of $2,250 per family. Hardship waivers will be available for those Americans who, even with

federal subsidies, are still unable to afford insurance.

Question: Will I go to jail if I don’t have health insurance?

Answer: No. The bill requires individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty (see

previous question). The bill specifically prohibits the IRS from confiscating taxpayer assets, from using

liens or levies, or imposing criminal penalties of any kind — including jail time — because of a lack of

health care coverage.

Question: Will the proposed legislation provide free health care to illegal immigrants?

Answer: No. The bill prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer assistance for health care

coverage. It goes further by prohibiting illegal immigrants from even buying health insurance with their

own money in the exchange.

Question: Does the bill provide federal funding for abortion?

Answer: No. On March 24, 2010, President Obama signed an executive order that has the full force and

effect of law making clear that current law of no federal funding for abortion applies to the new health

care reform legislation.

Question: Will all small businesses be forced to provide coverage to their employees?

Answer: The bill exempts all small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from providing health

insurance to their employees (96 percent of small businesses fall into this category). Beginning in 2014,

employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer health insurance coverage will pay an

assessment of $2,000 per full-time worker if any of their employees obtain tax credits through the

exchange. However, to avoid disincentives to hire an additional employee above 49 employees, the bill

subtracts the first 30 employees from this payment calculation.

Question: Can our country afford health insurance reform?

Answer: The cost of health care is rising exponentially, far outpacing inflation. We simply cannot afford

to maintain the status quo. If we do nothing to curb health care costs, by 2019 we will be spending one

out of every $5 dollars on health care. The longer we wait, the more it will cost to fix our broken health

care system. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the legislation found that it does not add to

the federal budget deficit.

Question: Will insurance companies be able to drop patients who have pre-existing conditions?

Answer: No. Beginning in September insurance companies will be prohibited from discriminating

against children based on preexisting conditions. Beginning in 2014 insurance companies will be

prohibited from discriminating against anyone based on preexisting conditions. The practice of rescission

(where insurance companies drop a patient once they become ill) will also be banned beginning in

September.

Prepared by the Office of U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak

THANK YOUR LOCAL DEITY THAT THE HOUSE CHANGES PASSED.

Your Access to Multiple Workers Comp. Markets

Trouble viewing this email? Click here.

Here's another specialty market from CompleteMarkets, your gateway to insurance markets. Retail insurance agents, to access additional markets, click here to join CompleteMarkets for free. Learn more about our CompleteMarkets Program. View in Browser | Coverage Search | Contact Us | Subscribe | Unsubscribe | Optimize Email Do not reply directly to this email. CompleteMarkets P.O. Box 542 Big Bear City, CA 92314-0542 tel: 909.547.6213 | fax: 909.547.6216 www.CompleteMarkets.com 481544

Acupuncturists - 23,988 records 1,826 emails

Email me at this address for a catalog of all our US lists: Tanisha.Simmons@discountlistsource.cz.cc

Also, ask about our sale pricing for more than one list.

to adjust your subscription status email to rembox@discountlistsource.cz.cc

Republican Wuss Factory

One of you sent me the piece quoted at the end of this.  The author's name has been lost as well as the location, but I think you will find it interesting.  Thanks for sending it along.

Meanwhile...


I must confess that I have been watching television lately, primarially following the health care bill, such as it is.  I have also seen a poll of Republicans taken by the Harris agency.  In addition, I have noticed the behavior of people outside the congress.  I also noticed that there was absolutely no coverage of the demonstrations against our adventurism in Afghanistan and continued occupation of Iraq.

What I have seen has not been very encouraging and one hopes that our European allies have not been exposed to these uglier facets of the Republican character.  I know that the BBC simply mentions the main parts of the bill and the representatives, so there is hope. 

This health care bill is the first such bill to be successful since Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, started trying to pass one, to provide health care that is anywhere near the quality found in other industrialized countries.  Franklin Roosevelt, it should be remember, saved Capitalism from its own greed after it nearly collapsed and even today he is considered "Socialist."  It should also be pointed out that even the morally challenged Richard M. Nixon tried to reform health care, and failed. 

The movement to "free" capitalism from restraint began is earnest with Ronald Regan and culminated in the repeal of the Glass-Steigle (spell it as you will) act by Clinton (I do wish he had inhaled).  Georgie then allowed greed to run rampant until the system nearly collapsed as it did in the Depression.

Well, what Obama did was save the insurance industry from itself with this bill.  A socialist approach would be to simply offer single-payer insurance for everybody and let them purchase insurance instead if they so wished.  The insurance industry would dissappear and we would all be better off.  No, Obama got health care reform passed and saved the insurance industry in the bargan.

So what was happening amongst Republicans, not one of which supported this reform?  Well, the great masses of them were very bitter as it was passed by Obama.  The real hatred of Obama is nothing more than purile anti-intellectualism.  Obama is intelligent and can use long words.  He can converse intellegently on a vast array of topics.  The mob know that it is inferior to such people and lack these qualities and thus finds ways to assert their superiority.  How do they do it?

Here is where observing their behavior applies.  As representatives walked to congress, many legislators of color were called "Nigger!"  One, an African American representative from Missouri, was spat upon.  Obviously, the inference is that those shouting and spitting were thereby superior in some way.  Another representative, perhaps the most intelligent in the house, is Barney Frank.  He was called "Faggot", and the unbrained masses thereby again felt superior.   Another more recent tactic has been to vandalize the home headquarters of representatives.  While I have had no chance of counting, several of these representatives were female.  Again, the stupid and dull-witted vidicate themselves to themselves.

What about that Survey?  Well, about 70% of Republicans think Obama is "Socialist".  Obviously an inferior status.  About 60% or so think he is a Moslem.  Does anybody remember Reverend Wright?  Obviously, memory is not a strong suit amongst Republicans.

Except when it concerns Waco when Janet Reno and her storm troopers attacked a small, weird, religious compound.  To celebrate the first anniversary of that day, the attack in Oklahoma was carried out.  Similar celebrations, I gather, are being planned for this year.

The patron saintess of these morons is Sarah Palin.  She has posted on Facebook a map with gunsight markings on the districts of Democratic lawmakers she feels should be, er, defeated.  However, we can not ascribe too much importance to that because she has been called a "wannabe Teabagger," not one of them, because she supports McCain.  McCain has tried to redeem himself with this crowd by swearing not to cooperate in any way with any democrat.

Now THAT'S the American way!  Damn the Torpedoes!  Put up or shut up!

Our next issue will be an art exhibit.

Here is the account sent by one of you:

"This morning I was awoken by my alarms clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."