posted January 23, 2014 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its "cure," is castratism. It never asks: "How can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?" It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.

The same means in the fight against a craving — castration, extirpation — is instinctively chosen by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate, to be able to impose moderation on themselves; by those who are so constituted that they require La Trappe, to use a figure of speech, or (without any figure of speech) some kind of definitive declaration of hostility, a cleft between themselves and the passion. Radical means are indispensable only for the degenerate; the weakness of the will — or, to speak more definitely, the inability not to respond to a stimulus — is itself merely another form of degeneration. The radical hostility, the deadly hostility against sensuality, is always a symptom to reflect on: it entitles us to suppositions concerning the total state of one who is excessive in this manner.

This hostility, this hatred, by the way, reaches its climax only when such types lack even the firmness for this radical cure, for this renunciation of their "devil." One should survey the whole history of the priests and philosophers, including the artists: the most poisonous things against the senses have been said not by the impotent, nor by ascetics, but by the impossible ascetics, by those who really were in dire need of being ascetics.

The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it represents a great triumph over Christianity. Another triumph is our spiritualization of hostility. It consists in a profound appreciation of the value of having enemies: in short, it means acting and thinking in the opposite way from that which has been the rule. The church always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immoralists and Antichristians, find our advantage in this, that the church exists.

---

posted January 24, 2014 10:19 PM            

Natural behavior, in his possibly naive opinion (though true of him, and for me, too) is that one treats others as one wants to be treated, at least most of the time. One doesn't steal because one doesn't want to be stolen from, one doesn't say "kill whoever you want" because it's only a matter of time before someone wants to kill you. And even small children can recognize unfairness and injustice and wail against it (sometimes even when people are unfair and cruel to other species, like how I tried to stop calves from being branded when I was age 4 which got my "moral" Christian uncle to lie to me about it not hurting them and then to feed me my favorite cow to teach me "cows are livestock, not pets") which he believes is instinctual, and perhaps even comparable to how piranha can be rapacious but never attack each other.

The problem is when certain people want power they devise unnatural morality to impose obligations and prohibit actions which in turns gives the "moral guardians" power, such as making their church "necessary" (and thus wealthy and powerful) and can even charge for "indulgences of sins" (even to this day people are strongly encouraged to donate, even to the point of jokes about how mansions in Heaven will be built according to how much you gave to the church in this life). By imposing standards of nationalism (lines on a map, how does that make sense via instinct?) people can be trained to become psychopathic monsters to the enemy by propaganda which makes the horrors of WW1 & 2 all too possible. And the most people who died in the 20th century were murdered by their own government and that does NOT include war, so clearly, to him, morality (the artificial false kind created by church and state) must be eliminated for the good of the species.