No More Learning

.
Whence came all the rejoicing with which the
appearance of Kant was greeted by the scholastic
world of Germany, three-quarters of which consist
of clergymen's and schoolmasters' sons ? Whence
came the German conviction, which finds an echo
even now, that Kant inaugurated a change for the
better? The theologian's instinct in the German
scholar divined what had once again been made
possible. . . . A back-staircase leading into the old
ideal was discovered, the concept “true world,” the
concept morality as the essence of the world (—those
two most vicious errors that have ever existed! ), were,
thanks to a subtle and wily scepticism, once again,
if not demonstrable, at least no longer refutable. . . .
Reason, the prerogative of reason, does not extend
so far.
Out of reality they had made “appear-
ance"; and an absolutely false world—that of being
-had been declared to be reality. Kant's success
is merely a theologian's success. Like Luther, and
like Leibniz, Kant was one brake the more upon
the already squeaky wheel of German uprightness.
mas
reality
ition
we
II
One word more against Kant as a moralist. A
pirtue must be our invention, our most personal
defence and need : in every other sense it is merely
a danger. That which does not constitute a con-
dition of our life, is merely harmful to it: to possess
a virtue merely because one happens to respect the
concept“ virtue,” as Kant would have us do, is per-
nicious. “Virtue,” “Duty,” “Goodness in itself. ”
"


## p. 137 (#157) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
137
] Kantian virtue
goodness stamped with the character of imperson-
ality and universal validity—these things are mere
—]
mental hallucinations, in which decline the final
devitalisation of life and Kenigsbergian Chinadom *
find expression. The most fundamental laws of pre-
servation and growth, demand precisely the reverse,
namely that each should discover his own virtue,
his own Categorical Imperative. A nation goes to
the dogs when it confounds its concept of duty with
the general concept of duty. Nothing is more pro-
foundly, more thoroughly pernicious, than every
impersonal feeling of duty, than every sacrifice to
the Moloch of abstraction. -Fancy no one's having
thought Kant's Categorical Imperative dangerous to
life! . . . The instinct of the theologist alone took
it under its wing ! -An action stimulated by the
instinct of life, is proved to be a proper action by
the happiness that accompanies it : and that nihilist
with the bowels of a Christian dogmatist regarded
happiness as an objection. . . . What is there that
destroys a man more speedily than to work, think,
feel, as an automaton of “duty," without internal
promptings, without a profound personal predilec-
tion, without joy? This is the recipe par excellence
of decadence and even of idiocy. . . .
Kant became
an idiot. —And he was the contemporary of Goethe !
This fatal spider was regarded as the German philo-
sopher, - is still regarded as such! . . . I refrain
from saying what I think of the Germans. Did
Kant not see in the French Revolution the transi-
tion of the State from the inorganic to the organic
form 2 Did he not ask himself whether there was
a single event on record which could be explained
a
lowtomaton
of duty
1!
-
-
from inorganic
stat to
apmicone
French
Rev.


## p. 138 (#158) ############################################

138
THE ANTICHRIST
otherwise than as a moral faculty of mankind; so
that by means of it, “mankind's tendency towards
good,” might be proved once and for all? Kant's
reply: "that is the Revolution. ” Instinct at fault
in anything and everything, hostility to nature as
an instinct, German decadence made into philosophy
--that is Kant !
Kant
I2
effeninay
a
practical
toon
Except for a few sceptics, the respectable type
in the history of philosophy, the rest do not know
the very first pre-requisite of intellectual upright-
ness. They all behave like females, do these great
enthusiasts and animal prodigies, — they regard
“beautiful feelings” themselves as arguments, the
“heaving breast as the bellows of divinity, and
conviction as the criterion of truth. In the end,
even Kant, with “Teutonic" innocence, tried to
dress this lack of intellectual conscience up in a
scientific garb by means of the concept “practical
reason. He deliberately invented a kind of reason
which at times would allow one to dispense with
reason, that is to say when “morality," when the
sublime command "thou shalt,” makes itself heard.
When one remembers that in almost all nations the
philosopher is only a further development of the
priestly type, this heirloom of priesthood, this fraud
towards one's self, no longer surprises one. When
a man has a holy life-task, as for instance to im-
prove, save, or deliver mankind, when a man bears
God in his breast, and is the mouthpiece of impera-
tives from another world, with such a mission he
stands beyond the pate of alt merely reasonable
valuations. He is even sanctified by such a taste,
order
hipher
men of
.


## p. 139 (#159) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
139
"true
free spirits
incarnation
of war
rrethods
and is already the type of a higher order! What
does a priest care about science! He stands too
high for that. –And until now the priest has ruled!
-He it was who determined the concept
and
false,"
13
Do not let us undervalue the fact that we our-
selves, we free spirits,Jare already a “transvaluation
of all values," an incarnate declaration of war
against all the old concepts “true” and
” and “untrue"
and of a triumph over them. The most valuable
standpoints are always the last to be found: but the
most valuable standpoints are the methods. All
the methods and the first principles of our modern
scientific procedure, had for years to encounter the
. profoundest contempt : association with them meant
exclusion from the society of decent people-one
was regarded as an "enemy of God,” as a scoffer
at truth and as “one possessed. ” With one's
scientific nature, one belonged to the Chandala.
We have had the whole feeling of mankind against
us; hitherto their notion of that which ought to be
truth, of that which ought to serve the purpose
of truth: every “thou shalt,” has been directed
against us. Our objects, our practices, our calm,
cautious distrustful manner-everything about us
seemed to them absolutely despicable and beneath
contempt. After all, it might be asked with some
justice, whether the thing which kept mankind
blindfold so long, were not an æsthetic taste : what
they demanded of truth was a picturesque effect,
and from the man of science what they expected
was that he should make a forcible appeal to their
excluson
see
from
people
2
/
map
a


## p. 140 (#160) ############################################

140
THE ANTICHRIST
senses. It was our modesty which ran counter to
their taste so long. . And oh! how well they
guessed this, did these divine turkey-cocks ! -
man
back to
beast
(क
evolutron
14
We have altered our standpoint. In every respect
we have become more modest. We no longer derive
man from the "spirit," and from the “godhead”;
we have thrust him back) among the beasts. We
regard him as the strongest animal, because he is
the craftiest: one of the results thereof is his. intel-
lectuality. On the other hand we guard against
the vain pretension, which even here would fain
assert itself: that man is the great arrière pensée of
organic evolution! He is by no means the crown
of creation, beside him, every other creature stands
at the same stage of perfection. . . . And even in
asserting this we go a little too far; for, relatively
speaking, man is the most botched and diseased of
animals, and he has wandered furthest from his
instincts. Be all this as it may, he is certainly the
most interesting! As regards animals, Descartes
was the first, with really admirable daring, to venture
the thought that the beast was machina, and the
whole of our physiology is endeavouring to prove
this proposition. Moreover, logically we do not set
man apart, as Descartes did : the extent to which
man is understood to-day goes only so far as he
has been understood mechanistically. Formerly man
was given " free will,” as his dowry from a higher
sphere; nowadays we have robbed him even of will,
in view of the fact that no such faculty is any longer
known. The only purpose served by the old word
LE
[tos
FREE
اااا
*


## p. 141 (#161) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
141
>
will,” is to designate a result, a sort of individual
reaction which necessarily follows upon a host of
partly discordant and partly harmonious stimuli:-
the will no longer “effects” or “moves” anything.
Formerly people thought that man's consciousness,
his "spirit,” was a proof of his lofty origin, of his
divinity. With the idea of perfecting man, he was
conjured to draw his senses inside himself, after the
manner of the tortoise, to cut off all relations with
terrestrial things, and to divest himself of his mortal
shell. Then the most important thing about him,
the "pure spirit,” would remain over.
Even con-
cerning these things we have improved our stand-
point. Consciousness, “spirit,” now seems to us
rather a symptom of relative imperfection in the
organism, as an experiment, a groping, a misappre-
hension, an affliction which absorbs an unnecessary
quantity of nervous energy. We deny that any-
thing can be done perfectly so long as it is done
consciously. “Pure spirit” is a piece of “pure
stupidity”: if we discount the nervous system, the
senses and the "mortal shell,” we have miscalculated
that it is all! . . .
15*
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes
in touch at all with reality. Nothing but imaginary
causes. (God, the soul, the ego, spirit, free will — or
even non-free will); nothing but imaginary effects
(sin, salvation, grace, punishment, forgiveness of
sins). Imaginary beings are supposed to have inter-
course (God, spirits, souls); imaginary Natural His-
tory (anthropocentric: total lack of the notion
"natural causes "); an imaginary psychology (nothing


## p. 142 (#162) ############################################

142
THE ANTICHRIST
A
but misunderstandings of self, interpretations of
pleasant or unpleasant general feelings; for instance
of the states of the nervus sympathicus, with the help
of the sign language of a religio-moral idiosyncrasy,
-repentance, pangs of conscience, the temptation of
the devil, the presence of God); an imaginary tele-
ology (the Kingdom of God, the Last Judgment,
Everlasting Life). —This purely fictitious world dis-
tinguishes itself very unfavourably from the world
of dreams: the latter reflects reality, whereas the
former falsifies, depreciates and denies it. Once the
concept “nature was taken to mean the opposite
of the concept God, the word “natural” had to
acquire the meaning of abominable,—the whole of
that fictitious world takes its root in the hatred of
nature (-reality! —), it is the expression of profound
discomfiture in the presence of reality. . But
this explains everything. What is the only kind
of man who has reasons for wriggling out of reality
by lies? The man who suffers from reality. But
in order to suffer from reality one must be a bungled
portion of it. The preponderance of pain over
pleasure is the cause of that fictitious morality and
religion : but any such preponderance furnishes the
formula for decadence.
nature
Vs.
*
God
pain
pleasure
*
16
A criticism of the Christian concept of God inevit-
ably leads to the same conclusion. —A nation that
still believes in itself, also has its own God. In him
it honours the conditions which enable it to remain
uppermost,—that is to say, its virtues. It projects
its joy over itself, its feeling of power, into a being, to


## p. 143 (#163) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
143
]
*
a
(
ci
whom it can be thankful for such things. He who
is rich, will give of his riches: a proud people requires
a God, unto whom it can sacrifice things.
Religion, when restricted to these principles, is a form
of gratitude. A man is grateful for his own existence;
for this he must have a God. -Such a God must
be
able to benefit and to injure him, he must be able to
act the friend and the foe. He must be esteemed
for his good as well as for his evil qualities. The
monstrous castration of a God by making him a
: God only of goodness, would lie beyond the pale of
the desires of such a community. The evil God is
k just as urgently needed as the good God: for a
people in such a form of society certainly does not
owe its existence to toleration and humaneness. . .
What would be the good of a God who knew nothing
of anger, revenge, envy, scorn, craft, and violence ?
—who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous
ardeurs of victory and of annihilation ? No one
would understand such a God: why should one
possess him ? Of course, when a people is on the
road to ruin; when it feels its belief in a future, its
hope of freedom vanishing for ever; when it becomes
conscious of submission as the most useful quality,
and of the virtues of the submissive as self-preserva-
tive measures, then its God must also modify him-
self. He then becomes a tremulous and unassuming
sneak; he counsels “ peace of the soul,” the cessa-
tion of all hatred, leniency and “love” even towards
friend and foe. He is for ever moralising, he crawls
into the heart of every private virtue, becomes a God
for everybody, he retires from active service and
becomes a Cosmopolitan. . . . Formerly he repre-
God -sign
of con


## p. 144 (#164) ############################################

144
THE ANTICHRIST
sented a people, the strength of a people, everything
aggressive and desirous of power lying concealed in
the heart of a nation: now he is merely the good
God. . . . In very truth Gods have no other alter-
native, they are either the Will to Power—in which
case they are always the Gods of whole nations,
or, on the other hand, the incapacity for power
in
which case they necessarily become good.
+
existence de
*
imp
[!
very
imp.
> Greeks?
17
Wherever the Will to Power, no matter in what
form, begins to decline, a physiological retrogression,
decadence, always supervenes. The godhead of
decadence, shorn of its masculine virtues and passions
is perforce converted into the God of the physiologi-
cally degraded, of the weak. Of course they do not
call themselves the weak, they call themselves “the
good. ” . . . No hint will be necessary to help you
to understand at what moment in history the dual-
istic fiction of a good and an evil God first became
possible. With the same instinct by which the
subjugated reduce their God to “Goodness in itself,"
they also cancel the good qualities from their con-
querer's God; they avenge themselves on their
masters by diabolising the latter's God. —The good
God and the devil as well :both the abortions
of decadence. —How is it possible that we are still
so indulgent towards the simplicity of Christian
theologians to-day, as to declare with them that the
evolution of the concept God, from the “God of
Israel,” the God of a people, to the Christian God,
the quintessence of all goodness, marks a step for-
ward ? _But even Renan does this. As if Renan


## p. 145 (#165) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
145
*
had a right to simplicity! Why the very contrary
stares one in the face. When the pre-requisites of
ascending life, when everything strong, plucky,
masterful and proud has been eliminated from the
concept of God, and step by step he has sunk down
to the symbol of a staff for the weary, of a last
straw for all those who are drowning; when he
becomes the pauper's God, the sinner's God, the
sick man's God par excellence, and the attribute
Saviour,” Redeemer,” remains over as the one
essential attribute of divinity: what does such a
metamorphosis, such an abasement of the godhead ]
imply ? -Undoubtedly, “the kingdom of God” has
thus become larger. Formerly all he had was his
people, his “chosen” people. Since then he has
gone travelling over foreign lands, just as his people
have done; since then he has never rested any-
where: until one day he felt at home everywhere,
the Great Cosmopolitan,-until he got the "greatest
number," and half the world on his side. But the
God of the “greatest number," the democrat among
gods, did not become a proud
heathen god notwith-
standing : he remained a few, he remained the God
of the back streets, the God of all dark corners and
hovels, of all the unwholesome quarters of the
world! . . . His universal empire is now as ever a
netherworld empire, an infirmary, a subterranean
empire, a ghetto-empire. And he himself is so
pale, so weak, so decadent. . . . Even the palest of
the pale were able to master him our friends the
metaphysicians, those albinos of thought. They
spun their webs around him so long that ultimately
he was hypnotised by their movements and himself
♡
x
God the
-
Democrat
>
Jant
O
ΙΟ


## p. 146 (#166) ############################################

146
THE ANTICHRIST
-
-
1
God
»
Ideal
becoming
.
became a spider, a metaphysician. Thenceforward
he once more began spinning the world out of his
inner being—sub specie Spinoza,—thenceforward he
transfigured himself into something ever thinner
and ever more anæmic, became “ideal,” became
pure spirit,” became “absolutum,” and “thing-in-
itself. ” . The decline and fall of a god: God
[ became the “ thing-in-itself. ”
18
-The Christian concept of God—God as the deity
of the sick, God as a spider, God as spirit—is one
of the most corrupt concepts of God that has ever
been attained on earth. Maybe it represents the
low-water mark in the evolutionary ebb of the
godlike type. God degenerated into the contradic-
tion of life, instead of being its transfiguration and
eternal Yea! With God war is declared on life,
nature, and the will to life! God is the formula for
every calumny of this world and for every lie con-
cerning a beyond In God, nonentity is deified,
and the will to nonentity is declared holy!
life
God=contradation,
of
19
The fact that the strong races of Northern Europe
did not repudiate the Christian God, certainly does
not do any credit to their religious power, not to
speak of their taste. They ought to have been able
successfully to cope with such a morbid and decrepit
offshoot of decadence. And a curse lies on their
heads; because they were unable to cope with him :
they made illness, decrepitude and contradiction a
part of all their instincts,--since then they have not


## p. 147 (#167) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
147
created any other God! Two thousand years have
passed and not a single new God! But still there
exists, and as if by right,-like an ultimum and
maximum of god-creating power,—the creator spiri-
tus in man, this miserable God of Christian mono-
tono-theism! This hybrid creature of decay, non-
entity, concept and contradiction, in which all the
instincts of decadence, all the cowardices and lan-
guors of the soul find their sanction !
--
20
Busshorn
-
With my condemnation of Christianity I should
not like to have done an injustice to a religion which
is related to it and the number of whose followers
is even greater; I refer to Buddhism. As nihilistic
religions, they are akin, — they are religions of
decadence, while each is separated from the other
in the most extraordinary fashion. For being able
to compare them at all, the critic of Christianity is
profoundly grateful to Indian scholars.
-Buddhism
is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity
-it is part of its constitutional heritage to be able
to face problems objectively and coolly, it is the out-
come of centuries of lasting philosophical activity.
The concept “God” was already exploded when it
appeared. Buddhism is the only really positive
religion to be found in history, even in its epis-
temology (which is strict phenomenalism)—it no
longer speaks of the “ struggle with sin," but fully
recognising the true nature of reality it speaks of
the “struggle with pain. ” It already has—and this
distinguishes it fundamentally from Christianity,–
the self-deception of moral concepts beneath it,--to


## p. 148 (#168) ############################################

148
THE ANTICHRIST
use my own phraseology, it stands Beyond Good and
Evil. The two physiological facts upon which it
rests and upon which it bestows its attention are:
in the first place excessive irritability of feeling,
which manifests itself as a refined susceptibility to
pain, and also as super-spiritualisation, an all-too-
lengthy sojourn amid concepts and logical pro-
cedures, under the influence of which the personal
instinct has suffered in favour of the “impersonal. "
(-Both of these states will be known to a few of
my readers, the objective ones, who, like myself, will
know them from experience. ) Thanks to these
)
physiological conditions, a state of depression set
in, which Buddha sought to combat by means of
hygiene. Against it, he prescribes life in the open, a
life of travel; moderation and careful choice in food;
caution in regard to all intoxicating liquor, as also in
regard to all the passions which tend to create bile
and to heat the blood; and he deprecates care either
on one's own or on other people's account. He recom-
ménds ideas that bring one either peace or good
cheer,-he invents means whereby the habit of con-
trary ideas may be lost. He understands goodness
.
-being good—as promoting health. Prayer is out
of the question, as is also asceticism ; there is neither
a Categorical Imperative nor any discipline whatso-
ever, even within the walls of a monastery (-it is
always possible to leave it if one wants to). All
these things would have been only a means of
accentuating the excessive irritability already re-
ferred to. Precisely on this account he does not
exhort his followers to wage war upon those who
do not share their views; nothing is more abhorred


## p. 149 (#169) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
149
1
in his doctrine than the feeling of revenge, of aver-
sion, and of resentment (“not through hostility
doth hostility end”: the touching refrain of the
whole of Buddhism . . . ). And in this he was
right; for it is precisely these passions which are
thoroughly unhealthy in view of the principal
dietetic object. The mental fatigue which he finds
already existent and which expresses itself in exces-
sive “objectivity” (i. e. , the enfeeblement of the
individual's interest-loss of ballast and of “ego-
ism”), he combats by leading the spiritual interests
as well imperatively back to the individual. In
Buddha's doctrine egoism is a duty: the thing
which is above all necessary, i. e. , “how canst thou
be rid of suffering ” regulates and defines the whole
of the spiritual diet (let anyone but think of that
Athenian who also declared war upon pure “scien-
tificality,” Socrates, who made a morality out of
personal egoism even in the realm of problems).
21
The pre-requisites for Buddhism are a very
mild climate, great gentleness and liberality in
the customs of a people and no militarism. The
movement must also originate among the higher
and even learned classes. Cheerfulness, peace and
absence of desire, are the highest of inspirations,
and they are realised. Buddhism is not a religion
in which perfection is merely aspired to: perfection
is the normal case. In Christianity all the instincts
of the subjugated and oppressed come to the fore:
it is the lowest classes who seek their salvation in
this religion. Here the pastime, the manner of
lower
classes


## p. 150 (#170) ############################################

150
THE ANTICHRIST
X body
killing time is to practise the casuistry of sin, self-
criticism, and conscience inquisition. Here the
ecstasy in the presence of a powerful being, called
“ god,” is constantly maintained by means of
prayer ;
while the highest thing is regarded as un-
attainable, as a gift, as an act of “grace. ” Here
plain dealing is also entirely lacking : concealment
and the darkened room are Christian. Here the
body is despised, hygiene is repudiated as sensual;
the church repudiates even cleanliness (the first
Christian measure after the banishment of the
Moors was the closing of the public baths, of which
Cordova alone possessed 270). A certain spirit of
cruelty towards one's self and others is also Christian:
hatred of all those who do not share one's views;
the will to persecute. Sombre and exciting ideas
are in the foreground; the most coveted states and
those which are endowed with the finest names, are
really epileptic in their nature; diet is selected in
such a way as to favour morbid symptoms and
to over-excite the nerves. Christian, too, is the
.
mortal hatred of the earth's rulers,—the “noble,”-
and at the same time a sort of concealed and secret
competition with them (the subjugated leave the
“body” to their master-all they want is the
soul”). Christian is the hatred of the intellect, of
pride, of courage, freedom, intellectual libertinage ;
Christian is the hatred of the senses, of the joys of
the senses, of joy in general.
VERY
Persecutio
imp.
wton
of the online
X
22
When Christianity departed from its native soil,
which consisted of the lowest classes, the submerged


## p. 151 (#171) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
151
masses of the ancient world, and set forth in quest
of power among barbaric nations, it no longer met
with exhausted men but inwardly savage and self-
lacerating men the strong but bungled men.
Here, dissatisfaction with one's self, suffering
through one's self,is not as in the case of Bud-
dhism, excessive irritability and susceptibility to
pain, but rather, conversely, it is an inordinate
desire for inflicting pain, for a discharge of the inner
tension in hostile deeds and ideas. Christianity
was in need of barbaric ideas and values, in order
to be able to master barbarians: such are for in-
stance, the sacrifice of the first-born, the drinking
of blood at communion, the contempt of the intel-
lect and of culture; torture in all its forms, sensual
and non-sensual; the great pomp of the cult.
Buddhism is a religion for senile men, for races
which have become kind, gentle, and over-spiritual,
and which feel pain too easily (-Europe is not
nearly ripe for it yet—); it calls them back to
peace and cheerfulness, to a regimen for the intel-
lect, to a certain hardening of the body. Christianity
aims at mastering beasts oj prey; its expedie is
to make them ill,—to render feeble is the Christian
recipe for taming, for “civilisation. " Buddhism is
a religion for the close and exhaustion of civilisa-
tion; Christianity does not even find civilisation at
hand when it appears, in certain circumstances it
lays the foundation of civilisation.
a
키
​23
Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times colder,
more truthful, more objective. It no longer requires


## p. 152 (#172) ############################################

152
THE ANTICHRIST
>
to justify pain and its susceptibility to suffering by
the interpretation of sin,-it simply says what it
thinks, “ I suffer. ” To the barbarian, on the other
hand, suffering in itself is not a respectable thing :
in order to acknowledge to himself that he suffers,
what he requires, in the first place, is an explanation
(his instinct directs him more readily to deny his
suffering, or to endure it in silence). In his case,
the word "devil” was a blessing: man had an
almighty and terrible enemy,—he had no reason to
be ashamed of suffering at the hands of such an
enemy. -
At bottom there are in Christianity one or two
subtleties which belong to the Orient. In the first
place it knows that it is a matter of indifference
whether a thing be true or not; but that it is of the
highest importance that it should be believed to be
true. (Truth and the belief that something is true:
two totally separate worlds of interest, almost
opposite worlds, the road to the one and the road to
the other lie absolutely apart. J To be initiated into
this fact almost constitutes one a sage in the Orient :
the Brahmins understood it thus, so did Plato, and
so does every disciple of esoteric wisdom. If for
.
example it give anyone pleasure to believe himself
delivered from sin, it is not a necessary prerequisite
thereto that he should be sinful, but only that he
should feel sinful. / If, however, faith is above all
necessary. then reason, knowledge, and scientific
research must be brought into evil repute : the road
to truth becomes the forbidden road. -Strong hope
is a much greater stimulant of life than any single
realised joy could be. Sufferers must be sustained
*
Troth
Vs.
Belief
*
FATH
HOPE


## p. 153 (#173) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
153
LOVE
by a hone which no actuality can contradict,—and
which cannot ever be realised: the hope of another
world. (Precisely on account of this power that
hope has of making the unhappy linger on, the
Greeks regarded it as the evil of evils, as the most
mischievous evil : it remained behind in Pandora's
box. ) In order that love may be possible, God must
be a person.
In order that the lowest instincts may
also make their voices heard God must be young.
For the ardour of the women a beautiful saint, and
for the ardour of the men a Virgin Mary has to be
pressed into the foreground. All this on condition
that Christianity wishes to rule over a certain soil,
on which Aphrodisiac or Adonis cults had already
determined the notion of a cult. To insist upon
chastity only intensifies the vehemence and pro-
fundity of the religious instinct - it makes the cult
warmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful. —Love is
the state in which man sees things most widely
different from what they are. The force of illusion
reaches its zenith here, as likewise the sweetening
and transfiguring power. When a man is in love
be endures more than at other times; he submits
to everything. The thing was to discover a religion
in which it was dossible to love by this means the
worstdin life is bvercome—it is no longer even seen.
So much for three Christian virtues Faith, Hope,
and Charity : I call them the three Christian precau-
tionary measures. —Buddhism is too full of aged
wisdom, too positivistic to be shrewd in this way.
-
-
Love
i
24
Here I only touch upon the problem of the origin


## p. 154 (#174) ############################################

154
THE ANTICHRIST
origin
*
-
(2)
a
* of Christianity. The first principle of its solution
reads: Christianity can be understood only in re-
lation to the soil out of which it grew,—it is not a,
counter-movement against the Jewish instinct, it is
the rational outcome of the latter, one step further.
in its appalling logic. In the formula of the Saviour:
for Salvation is of the Jews. ”—The second prin-
ciple is: the psychological type of the Galilean is
still recognisable, but it was only in a state of utter
degeneration (which is at once a distortion and an
overloading with foreign features) that he was able
to serve the purpose for which he has been used,-
namely, as the type of a Redeemer of mankind.
The Jews are the most remarkable people in the
history of the world, because when they were con-
fronted with the question of Being or non-Being,
with simply uncanny deliberateness, they preferred
Being at any price: this price was the fundamental
falsification of all Nature, all the naturalness and all
the reality, of the inner quite as much as of the outer
world. They hedged themselves in behind all those
conditions under which hitherto a people has been
able to live, has been allowed to live; of themselves
they created an idea which was the reverse of natural
conditions,—each in turn, they twisted first religion,
then the cult, then morality, history and psychology,
about in a manner so perfectly hopeless that they
were made to contradict their natural value. We
meet with the same phenomena again, and exag-
gerated to an incalculable degree, although only as a
* copy:—the Christian Church as compared with the
“chosen people," lacks all claim to originality. Pre-
cisely on this account the Jews are the most fatal
at
Being
any price


## p. 155 (#175) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
155
]
x
very
imp
6
a-
people in the history of the world: their ultimate
influence has falsified mankind to such an extent,
that even to this day the Christian can be anti-
Semitic in spirit, without comprehending that he
himself is the final consequence of Judaism.
It was in my “Genealogy of Morals” that I first
gave a psychological exposition of the idea of the
antithesis noble- and resentment-morality, the latter
having arisen out of an attitude of negation to the
former : but this is Judæo-Christian morality heart
and soul. In order to be able to say Nay to every,
thing that represents the ascending movement of
life, prosperity, power, beauty, and self-affirmation
on earth, the instinct of resentment, become genius,
had to invent another world, from the standpoint
of which that Yea-saying to life appeared as the
most evil and most abominable thing. From the
psychological standpoint the Jewish people are pos-
sessed of the toughest vitality. Transplanted amid
impossible conditions, with profound self-preserva-
tive intelligence, it voluntarily took the side of all
the instincts of decadence,—not as though domi-
nated by them, but because it detected a power in
them by means of which it could assert itself against
“the world. ” The Jews are the opposite of all de-
cadents : they have been forced to represent them
to the point of illusion, and with a non plus ultra of
histrionic genius, they have known how to set them-
selves at the head of all decadent movements (St
Paul and Christianity for instance), in order to create
something from them which is stronger than every
party saying Yea to life. For the category of men
which aspires to power in Judaism and Christianity,
ing
life
Jewisha
toughest
Vitality
*
Jews
opposite
of all
decordent


## p. 156 (#176) ############################################

156
THE ANTICHRIST
-that is to say, for the sacerdotal class, decadence
is but a means: this category of men has a vital
interest in making men sick, and in turning the
notions “good” and “bad,”“ true” and “false,"upside
down in a manner which is not only dangerous to
life, but also slanders it.
25
The history of Israel is invaluable as the typical
history of every denaturalisation of natural values :
let me point to five facts which relate thereto. Ori-
ginally, and above all in the period of the kings,
even Israel's attitude to all things was the right one
that is to say, the natural one. Its Jehovah was
the expression of its consciousness of power, of its
joy over itself, of its hope for itself: victory and
salvation were expected from him, through him it
was confident that Nature would give what a people
requires-above all rain. Jehovah is the God of
Israel, and consequently the God of justice : this is
the reasoning of every people which is in the position
of
power, and which has a good conscience in that
position. In the solemn cult both sides of this self-
affirmation of a people find expression : it is grateful
for the great strokes of fate by means of which it
became uppermost; it is grateful for the regularity
in the succession of the seasons and for all good
fortune in the rearing of cattle and in the tilling of
the soil. —This state of affairs remained the ideal for
some considerable time, even after it had been swept
away in a deplorable manner by anarchy from within
and the Assyrians from without. But the people
still retained, as their highest desideratum, that vision
Jehovahy


## p. 157 (#177) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
157
?
.
.
of a king who was a good soldier and a severe judge;
and he who retained it most of all was that typical
prophet (that is to say, critic and satirist of the
age), Isaiah. —But all hopes remained unrealised.
The old God was no longer able to do what he had *
done formerly. He ought to have been dropped.
What happened? The idea of him was changed, -] interpretation
the idea of him was denaturalised : this was the price
they paid for retaining him. - Jehovah, the God of
'Justice,"—is no longer one with Israel, no longer
the expression of a people's sense of dignity: he is
only a god on certain conditions. The idea of
him becomes a weapon in the hands of priestly
agitators who henceforth interpret all happiness as
a reward, all unhappiness as a punishment for dis-
obedience to God, for “sin”: that most fraudulent
method of interpretation which arrives at a so-called
“moral order of the Universe,” by means of which
the concept "cause" and "effect” is turned upside
down. Once natural causation has been swept out
of the world by reward and punishment, a causation
hostile to nature becomes necessary; whereupon all the
forms of unnaturalness follow. A God who demands,
-in the place of a God who helps, who advises, who
is at bottom only a name for every happy inspiration
of courage and of self-reliance. . . . Morality is no
longer the expression of the conditions of life and
growth, no longer the most fundamental instinct of
life, but it has become abstract, it has become the
opposite of life, -Morality as the fundamental per-
version of the imagination, as the "evil eye” for all
things. What is Jewish morality, what is Christian
morality ? Chance robbed or its innocence; unhappi-
a
Morality
becoming
opposite
life
-


## p. 158 (#178) ############################################

158
THE ANTICHRIST
ness polluted with the idea of "sin"; well-being
interpreted as a danger, as a “temptation”; physio-
logicalindisposition poisoned by means of the canker-
worm of conscience. . . .
26
oipon of
Bible
The concept of God falsified; the concept of
;
morality falsified: but the Jewish priesthood did
not stop at this. No use could be made of the
whole history of Israel, therefore it must go! These
priests accomplished that miracle of falsification, of
* which the greater part of the Bible is the document:
with unparalleled contempt and in the teeth of all
tradition and historical facts, they interpreted their
own people's past in a religious manner,—that is to
say, they converted it into a ridiculous mechanical
process of salvation, on the principle that all sin
against Jehovah led to punishment, and that all pious
worship of Jehovah led to reward. Wewould feel this
shameful act of historical falsification far more poig-
nantly if the ecclesiastical interpretation of history
through millenniums had not blunted almost all our
sense for the demands of uprightness in historicis.
And the church is seconded by the philosophers:
the lie of “a moral order of the universe" per-
meates the whole development even of more modern
philosophy. What does a “moral order of the uni-
verse" mean? That once and for all there is such
a thing as a will of God which determines what man
has to do and what he has to leave undone; that the
value of a 'people or of an individual is measured
according to how much or how little the one or the
other obeys the will of God; that in the destinies
»
philosopher


## p. 159 (#179) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
159
of a people or of an individual, the will of God
shows itself dominant, that is to say it punishes or
rewards according to the degree of obedience. In
the place of this miserable falsehood, reality says: a
parasitical type of man, who can flourish only
at the cost of all the healthy elements of life, the
priest abuses the name of God: he calls that state
of affairs in which the priest determines the value of
things "the Kingdom of God”; he calls the means
whereby such a state of affairs is attained or main-
tained, “the Will of God”; with cold blooded
cynicism he measures peoples, ages and individuals
according to whether they favour or oppose the
ascendancy of the priesthood. Watch him at work:
in the hands of the Jewish priesthood the Augustan
Age in the history of Israel became an age of
decline; the exile, the protracted misfortune trans-
formed itself into eternal punishment for the
Augustan Age—that age in which the priest did
not yet exist. Out of the mighty and thoroughly
free-born figures of the history of Israel, they made,
according to their requirements, either wretched
bigots and hypocrites, or “godless ones”: they
simplified the psychology of every great event to
the idiotic formula "obedient or disobedient to
God. ”—A step further : the “Will of God," that is
to say the self-preservative measures of the priest-
hood, must be known-to this end a "revelation”
is necessary. In plain English: a stupendous literat
ary fraud becomes necessary, “holy scriptures" are
discovered, and they are published abroad with all
hieratic pomp, with days of penance and lamenta-
tions over the long state of “sin. ” The “Will of
>
imp
dscovery
of
scaphire


## p. 160 (#180) ############################################

160
THE ANTICHRIST
God” has long stood firm : the whole of the trouble
lies in the fact that the “Holy Scriptures” have
been discarded. . . . Moses was already the “ Will
of God” revealed.
What had happened ?
With severity and pedantry, the priest had formu-
lated once and for all—even to the largest and
smallest contributions that were to be paid to him
(-not forgetting the daintiest portions of meat;
for the priest is a consumer of beef-steaks)—what
he wanted,“ what the Will of God was. ” . . . Hence-
forward everything became so arranged that the
priests were indispensable everywhere. At all the
naturał events of life, at birth, at marriage, at the
sick-bed, at death,—not to speak of the sacrifice
(“ the meal")—the holy parasite appears in order
to denaturalise, or in his language, to "sarctify,"
* everything. - . For this should be understood :
every natural custom, every natural institution (the
State, the administration of justice, marriage, the
care of the sick and the poor), every demand in-
spired by the instinct of life, in short everything
that has a value in itself, is rendered absolutely
worthless and even dangerous through the parasitism
of the priest (or of the “moral order of the uni-
verse"): a sanction after the fact is required, -a
power which imparts value is necessary, which in so
doing says, Nay to nature, and which by this means
alone creates a valuation.
The priest depre-
ciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price
that he exists at all. —Disobedience to God, that
is to say, to the priest, to the “law," now receives
the name of “sin”, the means of “reconciling one's
self with God” are of course of a nature which Sit
.
.
a
as
existence
of Priest
nesution
Nature
of
disol
to
pre


## p. 161 (#181) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
161
render subordination to the priesthood all the more
fundamental : the priest alone is able to "save. ”. . .
From the psychological standpoint, in every society
organised upon a hieratic basis, "sins” are indis-
pensable: they are the actual weapons of power,
the priest lives upon sins, it is necessary for him
that people should “sin. ” Supreme axiom :
“God forgiveth him that repenteth"_in plain
English : him that submitteth himself to the priest. very
.
.
very good
27
Christianity grew out of an utterly false soil, in
which all nature, every natural value, every reality
had the deepest instincts of the ruling class against
it; it was a form of deadly hostility to reality which
*
has never been surpassed. The “holy people” which
had retained only priestly values and priestly names
for all things, and which, with a logical consistency
that is terrifying, had divorced itself from every-
thing still powerful on earth as if it were “unholy,"
“worldly," "sinful,”—this people created a final
formula for its instinct which was consistent to the
point of self-suppression ; as Christianity it denied
even the last form of reality, the “holy people,” the
“ chosen people,” Jewish reality itself. The case is
of supreme interest: the small insurrectionary move-
ment christened with the name of Jesus of Nazareth,
is the Jewish instinct over again, — in other words,
in other words, I wery
it is the sacerdotal instinct which can no longer
endure the priest as a fact; it is the discovery of a
kind of life even more fantastic than the one pre-
viously conceived, a vision of life which is even
more unreal than that which the organisation
positie
rebelhaus
expect of
hustsant
intrestury
on
Jens
II


## p. 162 (#182) ############################################

162
THE ANTICHRIST
76
Hobbesian
[in sense?
SOCIETY
* of a church stipulates. Christianity denies the
church.
*
I fail to see against whom was directed the insur-
rection of which rightly or wrongly Jesus is under-
stood to have been the promoter, if it were not
directed against the Jewish church, the word
church” being used here in precisely the same
sense in which it is used to-day It was an insurrec-
tion against the “good and the just,” against the
"prophets of Israel," against the hierarchy of society
—not against the latter's corruption, but against
caste, privilege, order, formality. It was the lack of
faith in “higher men," it was a “Nay”uttered against
everything that was tinctured with the blood of
priests and theologians. But the hierarchy which
was set in question if only temporarily by this
movement, formed the construction of piles upon
which, alone, the Jewish people was able to sub-
sist in the midst of the "waters”; it was that
people's last chance of survival wrested from the
world at enormous pains, the residuum of its political
autonomy: to attack this construction was tanta-
mount to attacking the most profound popular
instinct, the most tenacious national will to live
that has ever existed on earth. ] This saintly anar-
chist who called the lowest of the low, the outcasts
and “sinners,” the Chandala of Judaism, to revolt
against the established order of things (and in
hapher man
very
imp
* It will be seen from this that in spite of Nietzsche's ruth-
less criticism of the priests, he draws a sharp distinction
between Christianity and the Church, As the latter still
contained elements of order, it was more to his taste than the
denial of authority characteristic of real Christianity. -TR,


## p. 163 (#183) ############################################

A CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
163
political
criminal
&
community
language which, if the gospels are to be trusted,
would get one sent to Siberia even to-day)—this
man was a political criminal in so far as political
criminals were possible in a community so absurdly
non-political. This brought him to the cross: the
proof of this is the inscription found thereon. He
died for his sins — and no matter how often the
contrary has been asserted there is absolutely
nothing to show that he died for the sins of others.
culique of
*
history
28
As to whether he was conscious of this contrast,
or whether he was merely regarded as such, is quite
another question. And here, alone, do I touch upon
the problem of the psychology of the Saviour. -I
confess there are few books which I have as much
difficulty in reading as the gospels. These diffi-
culties are quite different from those which allowed
the learned curiosity of the German mind to cele-
brate one of its most memorable triumphs. Many
years have now elapsed since I, like every young
scholar, with the sage conscientiousness of a refined
a
philologist, relished the work of the incomparable
Strauss. I was then twenty years of age; now I
am too serious for that sort of thing. What do
I care about the contradictions of “tradition"? How
can saintly legends be called “tradition” at all!
The stories of saints constitute the most ambiguous
literature on earth: to apply the scientific method
to them, when there are no other documents to hand,
seems to me to be a fatal procedure from the start
-simply learned fooling.
Х
Scientific
method
*
Imo


## p. 164 (#184) ############################################

164
THE ANTICHRIST
TYPE
29
The point that concerns me is the psychological
type of the Saviour. This type might be contained
the gospels, in spite of the gospels, and however
much it may have been mutilated, or overladen with
foreign features : just as that of Francis of Assisi is
contained in his legends in spite of his legends. It
is not a question of the truth concerning what he has
done, what he has said, and how he actually died;
but whether his type may still be conceived in any
way, whether it has been handed down to us at all?
-The attempts which to my knowledge have been
made to read the history of a “soul” out of the
gospels, seem to me to point only to disreputable
levity in psychological matters. M. Renan, that
buffoon in psychologicis, has contributed the two
most monstrous ideas imaginable to the explana-
tion of the type of Jesus: the idea of the genius and
the idea of the hero (“ héros ”). But if there is any-
thing thoroughly unevangelical surely it is the idea
of the hero. It is precisely the reverse of all struggle,
of all consciousness of taking part in the fight, that
has become instinctive here: the inability to resist
X is here converted into a morality (“ resist not evil,"
the profoundest sentence in the whole of the gospels,
their key in a certain sense), the blessedness of peace,
of gentleness, of not being able to be an enemy. What
is the meaning of “glad tidings"? —True life, eternal
life has been found—it is not promised, it is actually
here, it is in you ; it is life in love, in love free from
all selection or exclusion, free from all distance.
Everybody is the child of God - Jesus does not by
benins
>Hero
X
imp


## p.