Amoralism

Nietzsche chastised morality as untruth.

With the decay of religion and its palpable philosophical secularizations, restrictive prohibitions lost their inherent authority, their substantiality. It became ludicrous to pronounce prayers or commitment to a church with sincerity, especially as witnesses to 20th century horrors which were permitted by the major religions.

 In the 19th century, material production was still so undeveloped that it could be proclaimed with some reason that there was not enough to go round.  Anyone who did not criticize political economy as such, had to cling to the limiting principle which was then articulated as unrationalized appropriation at the expense of the weak.  The objective conditions have changed.  It is not only the social non-conformist or even the narrow-minded bourgeois who must see restriction as superfluous in face of the immediate abundance.  The implied meaning of the master-morality, that he who wants to live must fend for himself, has in the meantime become a still more miserable lie than it was when a nineteenth-century piece of pulpit-wisdom.  

If in Germany the common citizen proved himself a beast, this has nothing to do with national peculiarities, but with the fact that bestiality itself, necrophilia, has become in the face of manifest abundance the attitude of the backward, the deluded philistine, that same ‘hard-done-by’ mentality which the master-morality was invented to combat.  

If Cesare Borgia, late 15th, were resurrected today, he would look like David Friedrich Strauss and his name would be Adolf Hitler.  The cause of amorality has been espoused by the same Darwinists whom Nietzsche despised, since evolution meant racism, and who proclaim as their maxim the barbaric struggle for existence with such  vehemence, even though it is no longer needed.  True distinction has long ceased to consist in taking the best for oneself, and has become instead saturated with taking, the practices in reality of the virtue of giving, for Nietzsche occurs only in the mind.  

Ascetic ideals constitute today a more solid bulwark against the madness of the profit-economy then did the hedonistic life sixty years ago against liberal repression.  The amoralist may now at last permit himself to be a kind, gentle, unegoistic and open-hearted as Nietzsche already was then.  As a guarantee of his undiminished resistance, he is still as alone in this as in the days when he turned the mask of evil upon the normal world, to teach fear of its own perversity.