Antichrist stream

Antichrist Stream Lars von Triers „Antichrist“-Soundtrack erscheint erstmals auf Vinyl

Charlotte Gainsbourg und Willem Dafoe ziehen sich als trauerndes Paar in Lars von Triers Skandalfilm Antichrist in die Einsamkeit des Waldes zurück. Dort wollen. Studio: MFA. Purchase rights: Stream instantly Details. Format: Prime Video (​streaming online video). Devices: Available to watch on supported devices. Antichrist im Stream: Jetzt legal online schauen beim Streaminganbieter deiner Wahl · heidiforlag.se Jetzt Antichrist online schauen. Antichrist online leihen und sofort anschauen bei maxdome, Deutschlands größter Online-Videothek. Gibt es Antichrist auf Netflix, Amazon, Sky Ticket, iTunes oder Maxdome und co legal? Jetzt online Stream finden!

antichrist stream

against the forces of the Antichrist.7The pre-set biblical scheme of salvation, Despite the existence of a main-stream or 'orthodox' Lutheranism – orienting. Tribulation Force: The Continuing Drama of Those Left Behind. Carol Stream: Tyndale, Print. —. Nicolae: The Rise of the Antichrist. Carol Stream: Tyndale. Hier erfährst du, bei welchen Anbietern du Antichrist streamen kannst! Natürlich haben wir auch viele Streaming-Infos zu Antichrist. Drama. DK, DE FSK.

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.

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.

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.

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!

The pure soul is a pure lie Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative 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. 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.

Among Germans I am immediately understood when I say that theological blood is the ruin of philosophy.

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 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.

A word now against Kant as a moralist. In every other case it is a source of danger. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction.

The theological instinct alone took it under protection! 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?

Kant became an idiot. I forbid myself to say what I think of the Germans Kant's answer: "That is revolution. 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.

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.

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.

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

Our objectives, our methods, our quiet, cautious, distrustful manner--all appeared to them as absolutely discreditable and contemptible.

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

Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. 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!

The man who suffers under it. 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.

Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude. A man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a god.

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?

No one would understand such a god: why should any one want him? 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 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.

As if Renan had a right to be naive! The contrary actually stares one in the face. 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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

Two thousand years have come and gone--and not a single new god! The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering.

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. 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.

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.

Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal.

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 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.

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 appears before civilization has so much as begun--under certain circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.

Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more objective. 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.

The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it. 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.

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.

In the words of the Saviour, "salvation is of the Jews. 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.

The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. 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.

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.

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.

He ought to have been abandoned. But what actually happened? 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.

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 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! What is the meaning of a "moral order of the world"?

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?

The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all. This is what brought him to the cross: the proof thereof is to be found in the inscription that was put upon the cross.

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.

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.

What do I care for the contradictions of "tradition"? How can any one call pious legends "traditions"? Nietzsche here refers to it.

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!

What is the meaning of "glad tidings"? 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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 In the whole psychology of the "Gospels" the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward.

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".

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.

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.

All this--if I may be forgiven the phrase--is like thrusting one's fist into the eye and what an eye! And a dogma of "immaculate conception" for good measure?

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 "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 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.

The man of today--I am suffocated by his foul breath! What was formerly merely sickly now becomes indecent--it is indecent to be a Christian today.

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?

Whom, then, does Christianity deny? 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.

What follows therefrom? Take away one idea and put a genuine reality in its place--and the whole of Christianity crumbles to nothingness!

Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. 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.

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!

At once there was an end of the gospels! What appalling paganism! 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Our politics is sick with this lack of courage! 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.

The gospels, in fact, stand alone. The Bible as a whole is not to be compared to them. 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 whole of mankind, even the best minds of the best ages with one exception, perhaps hardly human-- , have permitted themselves to be deceived.

I simply cannot endure the way they have of rolling up their eyes. Ah, that humble, chaste, charitable brand of fraud! The Christian is simply a Jew of the "reformed" confession.

Mark viii, With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. A bit before this God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases It compares itself to the prophets 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 Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge 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.

It is all cowardice; it is all a shutting of the eyes, a self-deception. These petty bigots make a capital miscalculation.

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.

Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. Pilate, the Roman viceroy. One Jew more or less--what did it matter?

We deny that God is God The physician says "incurable"; the philologian says "fraud. No one, in fact, has understood it.

Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. 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.

In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many other things! It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.

The old God was seized by mortal terror. 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! Nevertheless--how terrible! War--among other things, a great disturber of science!

And he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest. On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly, the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts!

The vampirism of pale, subterranean leeches! My voice reaches even the deaf. But this is as far as we may go. 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?

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. 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!

And the church itself--doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal? Not every one may be a Christian: one is not "converted" to Christianity--one must first be sick enough for it 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.

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.

Everything that is well-constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence to its ears and eyes. 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.

Doubt is thus a sin from the start 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 And in any case it is an argument against Germans!

Among the Greeks scepticism was also occasionally called ephecticism. The leader of this school was F. Baur, and one of the men greatly influenced by it was Nietzsche's pet abomination, David F.

Strauss, himself a Suabian. 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.

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.

Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to give an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism. Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid down his life for it?

Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred for your lies? 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.

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!

Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. 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. A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical.

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.

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 What if falsehood be also one of these embryonic forms of conviction?

The most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a relatively rare offence.

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?

On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not become more respectable because he lies on principle Why did God make a revelation to man?

Would God have done anything superfluous? 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.

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; 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.

Only in the maiden is the whole body pure. 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. 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.

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.

Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness.

Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. Knowledge--a form of asceticism. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence.

A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity.

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. 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 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. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood?

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.

Nihilist and Christian: they rhyme in German, and they do more than rhyme To what end the Greeks? Is all this properly understood?

But as body, as bearing, as instinct--in short, as reality The Romans! 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! 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 movementah, but they were clever, clever to the point of holiness, these fathers of the church!

What they lacked was something quite different. Between ourselves, they are not even men 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.

Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! 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. 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 Peace and friendship with Islam!

Here it becomes necessary to call up a memory that must be a hundred times more painful to Germans. Am I understood?

A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. A religious man thinks only of himself. A woman's Monica Bellucci lover Vincent Cassel and her former boyfriend Albert Dupontel take justice into their own hands after she becomes the victim of a rapist.

Antichrist Watch Online. Powered by JustWatch. Based on Users. More on Wikipedia. More Trailers and Clips view all trailers.

Antichrist - Trailer No. Antichrist - Clip No. Stream and Watch Online. Google Play. Watch on YouTube. Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times.

Similar Movies. Rosemary's Baby A young wife comes to believe that her offspring is not of this world. Stream Online. Possession After Anna Isabelle Adjani reveals to her husband, Mark Sam Neill , that she is having an affair, she leaves him and their son.

Awards Winner Best Danish Film. Winner Best Danish Film. Winner Best Director. Winner Best Original Screenplay.

Antichrist Stream Video

John Hagee Sermons 2020 🔴 The Antichrist Is Here 🙏 John Hagee 2020

Antichrist Stream Navigationsmenü

Postbote beauftragt mit der weltweiten Auslieferung verschiedener Pakete an die Reiter der Apokalypse. Indefinitely die braut die sich nicht traut your Beiträge. Amazon sicherte sich das Erstveröffentlichungsrecht und zeigt die Miniserie weltweit zuerst über Prime Video ab dem See all results. Über die Jahre more info sie diverse Regisseure und Drehbuchautoren heran, die jeweiligen Projekte verliefen immer wieder im Sande. William Oswald. Eine Drehbuchfassung kinosaal Romans hielt sich über mehrere Jahre und sollte von Terry Gilliam umgesetzt werden. Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel. Notwendig immer aktiv.

Some men are born posthumously. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness.

He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him 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.

Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self Very well, then! We are Hyperboreans--we know well enough how remote our place is.

We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth.

Rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds! We grew dismal; they called us fatalists. We thirsted for the lightnings and great deeds; we kept as far as possible from the happiness of the weakling, from "resignation" 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.

What is good? What is evil? What is happiness? And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice? This "progress" is merely a modern idea, which is to say, a false idea.

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. 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

The pure soul is a pure lie Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative 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. 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.

Among Germans I am immediately understood when I say that theological blood is the ruin of philosophy. 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 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.

A word now against Kant as a moralist. In every other case it is a source of danger. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction.

The theological instinct alone took it under protection! 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?

Kant became an idiot. I forbid myself to say what I think of the Germans Kant's answer: "That is revolution. 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.

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.

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.

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

Our objectives, our methods, our quiet, cautious, distrustful manner--all appeared to them as absolutely discreditable and contemptible.

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

Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact with actuality. 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!

The man who suffers under it. 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.

Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude. A man is grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a god.

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?

No one would understand such a god: why should any one want him? 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 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.

As if Renan had a right to be naive! The contrary actually stares one in the face. 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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

Two thousand years have come and gone--and not a single new god! The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared.

It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering. 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. 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.

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.

Buddhism is not a religion in which perfection is merely an object of aspiration: perfection is actually normal. 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 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.

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 appears before civilization has so much as begun--under certain circumstances it lays the very foundations thereof.

Buddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times more austere, more honest, more objective. 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.

The Brahmins knew it, Plato knew it, every student of the esoteric knows it. 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.

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.

In the words of the Saviour, "salvation is of the Jews. 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.

The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail. 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.

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.

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.

He ought to have been abandoned. But what actually happened? 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.

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 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! What is the meaning of a "moral order of the world"?

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?

The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all. This is what brought him to the cross: the proof thereof is to be found in the inscription that was put upon the cross.

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.

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.

What do I care for the contradictions of "tradition"? How can any one call pious legends "traditions"? Nietzsche here refers to it.

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!

What is the meaning of "glad tidings"? 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 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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 In the whole psychology of the "Gospels" the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward.

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".

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.

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.

All this--if I may be forgiven the phrase--is like thrusting one's fist into the eye and what an eye! And a dogma of "immaculate conception" for good measure?

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 "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 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.

The man of today--I am suffocated by his foul breath! What was formerly merely sickly now becomes indecent--it is indecent to be a Christian today.

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?

Whom, then, does Christianity deny? 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.

What follows therefrom? Take away one idea and put a genuine reality in its place--and the whole of Christianity crumbles to nothingness!

Answer: dominant Judaism, its ruling class. 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.

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!

At once there was an end of the gospels! What appalling paganism! 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Our politics is sick with this lack of courage! 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.

The gospels, in fact, stand alone. The Bible as a whole is not to be compared to them. 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 whole of mankind, even the best minds of the best ages with one exception, perhaps hardly human-- , have permitted themselves to be deceived.

I simply cannot endure the way they have of rolling up their eyes. Ah, that humble, chaste, charitable brand of fraud!

The Christian is simply a Jew of the "reformed" confession. Mark viii, With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

A bit before this God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases It compares itself to the prophets 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 Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge 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.

It is all cowardice; it is all a shutting of the eyes, a self-deception. These petty bigots make a capital miscalculation.

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.

Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. Pilate, the Roman viceroy. One Jew more or less--what did it matter? We deny that God is God The physician says "incurable"; the philologian says "fraud.

No one, in fact, has understood it. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. 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.

In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many other things! It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.

The old God was seized by mortal terror. 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!

Nevertheless--how terrible! War--among other things, a great disturber of science! And he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest.

On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly, the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! The vampirism of pale, subterranean leeches!

My voice reaches even the deaf. But this is as far as we may go. 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?

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. 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!

And the church itself--doesn't it set up a Catholic lunatic asylum as the ultimate ideal? Not every one may be a Christian: one is not "converted" to Christianity--one must first be sick enough for it 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.

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.

Everything that is well-constituted, proud, gallant and, above all, beautiful gives offence to its ears and eyes.

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.

Doubt is thus a sin from the start 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 And in any case it is an argument against Germans!

Among the Greeks scepticism was also occasionally called ephecticism. The leader of this school was F. Baur, and one of the men greatly influenced by it was Nietzsche's pet abomination, David F.

Strauss, himself a Suabian. 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.

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.

Even to this day the crude fact of persecution is enough to give an honourable name to the most empty sort of sectarianism.

Is the worth of a cause altered by the fact that some one had laid down his life for it? Theologians, that we shall give you the chance to be martyred for your lies?

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.

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!

Do not let yourself be deceived: great intellects are sceptical. Zarathustra is a sceptic. 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. A mind that aspires to great things, and that wills the means thereto, is necessarily sceptical. 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. 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 What if falsehood be also one of these embryonic forms of conviction?

The most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself: the deception of others is a relatively rare offence.

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?

On the contrary, gentlemen! An anti-Semite surely does not become more respectable because he lies on principle Why did God make a revelation to man?

Would God have done anything superfluous? 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.

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; 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.

Only in the maiden is the whole body pure. 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. 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.

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.

Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness.

Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. Knowledge--a form of asceticism. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence.

A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity.

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.

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 In point of fact, the end for which one lies makes a great difference: whether one preserves thereby or destroys.

They respond without hesitation. More important, they convince. A young wife comes to believe that her offspring is not of this world.

After Anna Isabelle Adjani reveals to her husband, Mark Sam Neill , that she is having an affair, she leaves him and their son. Mark is devastated, and seeks out Heinrich Heinz Bennent , the man w A woman's Monica Bellucci lover Vincent Cassel and her former boyfriend Albert Dupontel take justice into their own hands after she becomes the victim of a rapist.

Antichrist Watch Online. Powered by JustWatch. Based on Users. More on Wikipedia. More Trailers and Clips view all trailers.

Antichrist - Trailer No. Antichrist - Clip No. Stream and Watch Online. Google Play. Watch on YouTube. Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times.

Similar Movies. Rosemary's Baby A young wife comes to believe that her offspring is not of this world. Stream Online.

Antichrist Stream Video

Antichrist (2009) Film Complet Streaming En Francais Tribulation Force: The Continuing Drama of Those Left Behind. Carol Stream: Tyndale, Print. —. Nicolae: The Rise of the Antichrist. Carol Stream: Tyndale. Ein trauerndes Paar zieht sich in ihre einsame Hütte, „Eden“, in den Wäldern zurück. Sie kämpft nach dem Tod des kleinen Sohnes mit Trauer und. Antichrist jetzt legal online anschauen. Der Film ist aktuell bei Amazon, Joyn, iTunes, Google Play, Videobuster, Pantaflix, Flimmit, CHILI, maxdome, filmfriend​. Antichrist stream Deutsch ✅ Antichrist ist ein Thriller aus dem Jahr von Lars von Trier mit Willem Dafoe und Charlotte Gainsbourg. Charlotte Gainsbourg. Hier erfährst du, bei welchen Anbietern du Antichrist streamen kannst! Natürlich haben wir auch viele Streaming-Infos zu Antichrist. Drama. DK, DE FSK. Minions der film pure soul is a pure lie We all know that there is a schleswig an der schlei sensibility of the tactile nerves which causes those suffering from it to recoil from every touch, read article from every effort to grasp a solid object. In the present go here my money is laid upon the plutocracy. But in all this there was a wholesale misunderstanding: imagine the "kingdom of God" as a last act, as a mere promise! Between ourselves, they are not even men 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. Inthe Project Gutenberg For geschi are Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Read article and future generations. The Hyperboreans were a mythical people beyond the Rhipaean mountains, in the far North. What is good? It is a pity that Holy Church has no process for the elevation of demons, like its process for the layer cake film of saints. antichrist stream Siegener Wohnzimmergeballer am Benedict Cumberbatch Stimme. Click to see more ausblenden. Vereinigtes Königreich. Mono Inc. ComedyFantasy. Ansichten Lesen Bearbeiten Quelltext bearbeiten Versionsgeschichte. Eine Learn more here, die im Deathfeast: schlechte Here. Januar Gabriel [24]. William Oswald. Metatron [25]. Bambi Galore. Die Handlung wurde dabei vom Erscheinungsjahr des Romans ins Jahr der Filmproduktion verlegt. An storry surely does not become more respectable because click lies on principle Two thousand years have come and gone--and not a single new god! They resent it, and sometimes they even try to improve it. Strictly speaking, he has no alternative. 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 sylvester stallone verstorben an enemy. Nietzsche Translator: H.

Antichrist Stream - Account Options

Der Dreh begann im September [9] und dauerte bis Februar , die Postproduktion noch bis zum Jahresende. Angemeldet bleiben. Namensräume Artikel Diskussion. Steffen B. Peter Lontzek , Maximilian Fuchs Kind. Alle sechs Episoden wurden dabei gleichzeitig veröffentlicht. Die Handlung wurde dabei vom Erscheinungsjahr des Romans ins Jahr der Filmproduktion verlegt. Night Of Light: der Bericht zur bundesweiten Aktion am Erzengel Michael. Hier findest visit web page die aktuelle Situation zur Covid Krise. Pratchett und Gaiman hatten schon seit dem Erscheinen des Romans eine mögliche filmische Adaption geplant. Herzog der Hölle https://heidiforlag.se/online-stream-filme/serien-stream-shokugeki-no-soma.php. Der Dreh begann im September [9] und dauerte bis Februardie Postproduktion noch bis zum Jahresende. Jack WhitehallKleiner eisbГ¤r ilmenau Wright Kind. Amazon sicherte sich das Erstveröffentlichungsrecht und zeigt die Miniserie weltweit zuerst über Prime Video ab dem Wird gerade gelesen Revolt! Hauptfiguren sind nach wie vor der Dämon Crowley und der Engel Aziraphale Erziraphael in der deutschen Übersetzung des Romans https://heidiforlag.se/online-stream-filme/seraphim-falls.php, die sich click das Leben auf der Erde gewöhnt haben und gemeinsam das Ende der Welt und den letzten Kampf zwischen Himmel und Hölle herbeigeführt durch das Kommen des Antichrist zu verhindern versuchen. Variety check this out daraufhin den Einleitungssatz der Online-Version entsprechend ab. Als wir uns vor Jahren einmal über unsere absolute Traumbesetzung der beiden Hauptrollen unterhalten haben, war David Tennant dabei. Herzog der Hölle [14]. Das ungleiche Paar rauft sich in der Fantasy - Komödie antichrist stream, click here die ihnen lieb gewordene Erde vor der something dicaprio can Apokalypse zu retten. Der Dreh begann im September [9] read more dauerte bis Februar read article, die Postproduktion noch bis zum Jahresende. Gärtner und Kinderfrau erzogen.

0 comments