Go to My Writing for explanation of this document.

67& Modern morality condemns almost the entire literature of past ages. We must have a society in which it is clear that the individual is a fully separate entity. Laws are not to be obeyed simply because they are laws, Morally the individual is bound only unto himself. He must be considered free to make his own life. Here is my protestant or puritan belief in the sovereignty of the individual conscience coupled with what might be called a Catholic belief in a universal church, a common wisdom. Insofar as the state imposes constraint, this must be recognised as a restriction on sovereign freedom of the individual, entirely dependent for its binding force on the deterrent it imposes. The ridiculous idea that one is morally bound to obey the law, except when acquiescence in it involves acts which actually revolt conscience, ought to be overthrown. Criminals should be treated with dignity. This attitude would give us greater freedom to breathe than we have now, where the exaggerated emphasis on the rule of law turns us into mere functions of authority. To feel the decisions of the majority as morally binding on the individual is to destroy his sovereign freedom, to refuse it the respect which it deserves. Who were the men who created the freedoms which ultimately led to democracy? Men who believed in the sovereignty of conscience, who had a clear external standard by which to judge the justice of the laws. An unjust law such as the law against cannabis must not be tolerated. Idiotic conservatism which preserves restrictions just because they are traditional is sterile and ugly.

133 What is healthy is that those who have power should exercise it to their own advantage. Then questions of morality would more often than not never arise. The moralisation of our civilisation, particularly American society, is following Kant. The fact is that the real fulfilment of some entails the deprivation of others. This has almost the status of a law of nature. altruistic morality must act as an obstacle to the normal healthy flow of self interest. A late, decadent culture, disproportionably dominated by plebs and women, turns morality into the central interest of culture.

AQ 41 Morality and the pubescent girl. What she has learnt growing up. Like about naughty boys. This identification of mediocrity with common sense, with what everybody knows.

100 Thomas Mann’s interpretation of Nietzsche. The nazi interpretation. Seeing complete continuity from the BT days. Seeing him as all for life and will as against the constraints of the reason. Following Mobius and his pathography, seeing Nietzsche’s thought as a degeneration into illness. How can someone of the mind of Thomas Mann so crassly misread Nietzsche’s philosophy in the light of contemporary events)?
Or did Thomas Mann have so great a mind after all?

Mann and Mobius. First his portrayal of Nietzsche’s message as will and instinct against reason, morality and self restraint. He thinks Nietzsche degenerated into a kind of criminal megalomania, but there was and intellectual error there from the beginning. I have a different interpretation of his intellectual development from BT onwards. I see him as rejecting demoralising ideas, morality of the weak. This is so much subtler an idea than a crude idea of rejecting all restriction.
View of the world as will to power involves an immersion in the power struggle. To say that will should express itself without any restraints, as if this is some kind of moral principle, is so crass an intellectual mistake it inconceivable that any intelligent person should make it.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Is it my will to murder and rape? In the present context no, the consequences would be abhorrent.
Yet s there not something particularly liberating about fantasies of rapine and murder, as about shocking people?
In one sense I do want to murder and rape, that is the ideal sense, the sense in which a priggish morality makes me want to deny my thoughts to myself. I say this is not even incompatible with morality, though it may be with Jesus.

108 But to any such form of enlightenment the Jewish moral idea can prove worse than an irrelevance, An obstruction.
Anti-Semitism at the time of the Crusades, the rise of Islam. Almost as if some new creative idea has to prove itself against this. As if the existence of the Jews is a kind of catalyst.
Yet in any time of creative achievement one may turn on the Jews. It is dangerous for them.
This moral idea they give to humanity, this strange asceticism, no more than their survival mechanism. What it means is guilt. It is an ideal of not following your own interest. At times of excitement such guilt can be felt as loathsome

336 Iris Murdoch’s idea that moral philosophy can fill the gap left by the death of Christianity. Femininity of this idea. Recall George Eliot. Little girls against rough boys. Wanting to restrain their wildness with morality. It is all rubbish. Everything comes down to power. Anyway I expect Christianity is far from dead. There is a kind of cycle in our society. To overthrow it would be far more difficult than exposing its scientific misapprehension.
Christianity is a kind of psychological reaction, something deeper than mere illusion. Even it if depends on ignorance and stupidity for its periodic regeneration,

C 50 The Stranglers, book on Thugee. I find the thugs extremely worthwhile to study as a life form which while having a complex philosophical coherence does not bear the general good of society at heart. Thus we can study the form of morality in isolation from its particular concomitants. We see how different human ideas can exist separate from each other in spite of the efforts of our western moralists to prove how they are all logically interconnected or emotionally bound up with each other.

A 10 I think morality is much to do with power. Stirnerism is just not adequate for one who gets into some of the situations that I get into. Life as amoral conflict of wills. This is only for the very strong and the very weak. It clarifies but it is not an adequate tool for handling men.

11/14 Satan principle

75 Justice

81 Eliphas Levi. His moral dualism does provide a splendidly dramatic setting for occult imaginative literature. Crowley’s novels were not completely successful dramatically. Lilith by George MacDonald has a most interesting theology. See how Levis form of Catholicism leads necessarily to decadent romanticism. What he makes forbidden is what is most exotically fascinating, the occult appeals to man’s passions, to make it forbidden makes it ten times more fascinating. Yet how is it to be enjoyed if it is intrinsically bound up with the pangs of hell? By masochism, decadence etc. That which is to be desired must not be forbidden, as the Buddhists knew. By making certain things forbidden, and these not things which threaten the survival of the race, not things we automatically shy from in revulsion. Levi is a decadent,. He opens up an exciting new world then says we may not enter on pain of Hell..

102 history of ethical theory

106 Morality. Perhaps there is no simple criterion, perhaps rather there is s a whole way of looking at things which means that we can say that some people deserve to be condemned as odious creeps. And that the point of view for which I stand is justifiable as the biologically necessary truth for the age. He cannot be strong because he is out of harmony.
The task of the moral philosopher to show how it is possible for someone to be objectively foul.

120 Master morality cannot be for everybody. Feudal vassal morality is probably better than anything less for the once born. But I do not believe that even the people should be rigidly moral. I delight in human variety and only fear lest too general a contempt for morality should lead to a breakdown of public order.

AR 113 A tendency to support Marx, Freud and Einstein precisely because they are Jewish.
Without in any way wanting to impugn the fantastic creativity of Vienna, it is not the ideas I take issue with but the attitude towards them. There is like a moral pressure to overrate the achievements of the Jews. And precisely this moral idea has a certain originality. It is different from the normal process of argument.
It is something very like faith in God, with all the moral pressure that attaches to that. The exaltation of certain values beliefs and practices above all the nations. The whole practice is familiar from the Old Testament. It is a particular attitude to the treasures of culture.
But it conflicts with other values we may have formed independently. In criticising these ideas it is interesting to consider if there is a danger of falling into antisemitic prejudice.

DD 73 Sanine’s philosophy is of course far more limited than Nietzsche’s the great man contains, assimilates and masters all forms of decadence, poisons, sicknesses, (as Rimbaud) general liberation is not possible, permissiveness breeds its own torments and inadequacies.
The human drama is played as much amid moral forces as sensual realities. Permissiveness merely makes these forces operate in a different way, gives moral superiority to different people. A more rigid morality may perhaps serve as a better background for the development of truly liberated and superior qualities, It is better that moral categories should be rejected in favour of true enjoyment than that they be rejected in favour of self tormenting asceticism. A conventional morality inevitably cramps and constrains, the true test of strength of character is whether one is able to escape it, containing and mastering poisons.

Egoism is always to provide the sound basis. Yet the test of status in the new morality is the chance animal one of how much pleasure one can get. How can the liberated egoist bow to these primitive standards? He is obliged to reject them. One wishes to gain mastery of moral forces. Where those who conform gain more pleasure than those who rebel, the situation is dangerous. Inevitably in any case there will be those who suffer; equality and happiness are not compatible.

English hypocrisy was perhaps a good thing; the urge to complete moral consistency in exceedingly pernicious. Besides, if we observe the behaviour of people who consistently and as a class say one thing and do the reverse, we are merely observing a logically interesting characteristic of their moral practice. Perhaps it is not hypocrisy at all, but a morality in its own right.
Who should have true moral superiority? Certainly not he who merely conforms. With different moralities we see the setting up of different hierarchies and statuses.
The new morality is of course in no sense complete instinctual liberation. It liberates certain instincts at the expense of others and thus generates a new hierarchy within which certain types come to the fore.
Two kinds of moral superiority generated, 1 moral superiority of the idea (ie within the system) 2 real moral superiority ie the power of demoralising others.
Why are the former possessors of 2 liable to be demoralised? Their position in society has altered.

110& Sometimes the status quo does represent a restrictive morality. We may postulate a superior man who is subject to no such code, who does as he pleases. Achilles is really much like this, he chooses to die eventually for egoistic motives, albeit that ‘eternal fame’ is one of them. I get the impression that Roland is a bit of an arrogant prig. His established superiority could appear insufferable ‘paynims are wrong Christians are in the right’ he says. This is a definite type of character; we all have met such. Shallow because he lacks understanding of values and attitudes outside his simple moral code. His authority must be irksome to those who do possess such understanding, it depends on a certain suppression of possibilities, a moral restriction. This moral restriction gives him his arrogance but he cannot see the contingency of its ground. He naturally believes that the set of values which gives him this superiority is necessary and absolute, his moral authority thus creates a stifling atmosphere for the otherwise talented. The poet was a realistic observer of human nature. He sense the great significance of the Roland/Ganelon conflict, something far more important than a mere tale of envy, and no doubt very important at that stage of society.

The pre-moral stage is prior and it is the stage of the Greeks, unrestrained vital energy. It is very often evil characters who stand for this, or so I would say in the Christian tradition, something so implanted in us that we tend to take it as the permanent truths of the human mind. ‘Good’ versus ‘evil’.

The primary order then is not simply ‘the established code’ but no code at all, that is to say the law of do what thou wilt. The strong man doing as he pleases.
Perhaps the fact that this was the natural order of the ancient Greeks in their greatest days explains why it was that their culture was so magnificent. One could join in honestly and egoistically, one need feel no resentment against the established order of things. One could give one’s all without selling one’s soul, ie vital energies could find direct expression in an extraverted creative culture.
Urizen and Orc. The Greeks, no Urizen.

I could write an analysis of hero ideal. Roland, Othello, Sanine, Achilles. El Cid Campeador is a far more admirable hero than Roland, his enemies are obviously foolish and base and he is a peacetime ruler as well as a warrior champion. There is Islamic influence evident in his egoistic morality and good conscience.
Much of what I write is an a sense a rephrasing of Nietzsche.

120 The Song of Roland is the first real work of western literature. Roland and Ganelon two opposed aristocratic archetypes. A unifying, imperialistic aggressive work. There are elements in the poem which are certainly not Christian, namely aristocracy, military glory, a kind of racial pride. Charlemagne the leader of a band of self righteous predators. Christianity provides the excuse for racial arrogance.
That good is bad and evil is necessary. ‘Goodness’ often implies an unquestioning acceptance of the prevailing moral code. this can be very dangerous and harmful. ‘Wickedness’ to some people means simply the form of wickedness, ie whatever it is possible to present as such, from the serpent in Eden to Hitler. Wickedness a form of disobedience. Disobedience is a good and desirable thing.

RR 155 sentimentality of English, Germans and Americans.
To attack such emotion is to be ‘evil’. What is ‘good’ in a culture and what is ‘evil’ comes down to mere emotional conformism. The non conformist is evil because he does not conform. He disparages what everyone else feels and feels justified in feeling and what is therefore sacred. He tramples on the sacred, religious and patriotic feelings, sexual sentimentalisms. Sentimentality is a false excess of emotion. It is inappropriate and self indulgent. I would say that it is by definition never really allowable. To fall into it is a form of feebleness. An unjustified emotional response is one that does not help you to resolve a situation in the best way, It paralyses. It is responsible for bad art and all manner of bad solutions.

Nazism in its masochistic aspect, a repulsive sticky conformism.
English sentimentality. Take the paintings of Millais in the Tate. His Ophelia and his painting of nuns digging a grave are magnificent, superb genuine stuff. His knight errant is ludicrous, a mere bad joke. An artist like Millais falls into sentimentality through his decency, his desire to be good or at least not evil. For it is evil to despise the emotional confusion of the multitude
By the time religion reaches this stage it has become exceedingly degenerate.
True religion must be Gnostic, the following of conscience must lead via and through what to the multitude is evil.

AU 145 the premise of New Labour that it has a monopoly on compassion, that compassion is even necessary, may be completely wrong. That the revolution actually produces any good at all. Kinnocks speech when he lost the election. ‘don’t be old, don’t be sick’ etc etc. sounds completely absurd, a politician taking his personal concerns much too seriously
The idea of human motives, emotions like pity, making all that much difference, seems quite wrong. It is all about control what more could it be about? Power and more control, control for a class and doctrine to bind.
The myth of English freedom. Defying this is control and regulation, such as the Victorians began. Always there has been this other side. It cultivates stupidity, not argument.
The doctrine will scarcely admit to argument on grounds it knows it will lose.
There is a corrupt culture and aesthetic of power that justifies itself in terms of morality. Like the moral motive whatever it is.

183 New Labour and the moralism it has hijacked. The utter phoniness of the moral demands which can be spotted by an excursion into origins.
Looking at the moral basis of old style socialism, which may have been wrong but which had a logical basis to it.
Value of twentieth century intellectual history to expose the contingent and desire driven nature of the ideas that claim a hold over us.

187 I do not reject moral language. People who use moral language and contradict themselves convict themselves of moral corruption.
To value freedom from starvation above personal liberty is one thing, but to measure fashionable modern ‘rights’ like feminist or homosexual equality above ancient values like free speech or our traditional legal safeguards is seething else altogether.
As for doctrine, what is it now? Fashionable trivial issues like political correctness, inoffensiveness to all sorts of minorities and various populist enthusiasms like the anti-paedophile hysteria that crawled out of the prisons with its anti-nonce culture.
If you live by morality you die by morality. Blair’s sanctimony. His lying, complete moral corruption.
Invoke morality and your own motives are judged. by the very standard you have called up, you are a rotten stinking disgusting corpse, your very ambition and greed document themselves and you show yourself the worst of men.
Just as Trotsky and Zinoviev deserved what they got at Stalin’s hands.

311 Stirling (The Canon) ‘of the morality which the philosophers attempted to combine with their theological myths we have said nothing, because very often it is only an irrelevant accessory’.
It may appear that to take religion thus is to teach a counter morality.

312 Hegel

AT 8 Zola’s The Debacle.
So wrong to see morality as merely repressive. Zola’s materialism which expresses nihilism. & this nihilism is a weakness. See how resentment destroys this whole civilisation. Morality itself become something malign. The idea of progress in morality.
Within society the significance of ideologies held. Ideologies which assuage resentment and bring confidence.
Where resentful ideology is triumphant it becomes vital to counter it. Just a resentful people cannot be happy till their resentment is expressed, so for those of the counterresentment the rule of resentment is an intolerable affront.

14 Morality should be enabling rules, like law, not some great principle. Great principles are inimical to freedom. It must permit cruelty and violation.

50 Is life meaningless and what could make it so? What can give life meaning & in what circumstances can it appear meaningless? Idea of weltschmerz. Mixture of the classes. Morality of the weak that is imposed on those who are not weak.
How one is supposed to live and the value one is supposed to get from life having acquired the force of morality.
For the strong, a troublesome and restrictive ideal, an ideal of life far removed from the reality of desire. Something that strongly conflicts with desire.
Yet for the weak the ideal precisely expresses, desire, commensurate with perceived strength.
See where democracy has led. Following a fight back in the sixties. Morality appears as a sort of curse.
The achievement of contemplation experienced as an achievement of the will. The Gnostic myth versus the Buddhist. The Buddhist, a turning away from life. Ideal of the monk Instead we look in terms of overcoming.

140 Rushdie, democracy. The tendency of the people to think primitively, to demonise, to feel passionately on some issues that have nothing to do with liberal enlightenment. About drug dealers or about paedophiles. It is very like the masses in Muslim countries believing Salman Rushdie should be killed. There are hateful primitive mass emotions that express themselves as morality. Enlightened politicians should lead, not follow. But democratic politicians see such opinions as something to exploit, as ladders to power. Newspapers see them as ways of selling papers and making money.
For democracy to work presupposes an enlightened electorate, ie if we are not to be frightened of them we should make them more like us.

The police are to be feared like cancer is to be feared. You like cancer to exist because it culls people. People need to be culled or there would be no money to inherit. Prison and executions are misfortunes that may befall, but you hope not to you. Take the law and justice seriously as a matter of principle and the injustice of much law screams out. One is filled with indignation.

178 Boys picking up an alternative morality from tales of pirates,

222 Immoral people find misogyny enjoyable, it is like the gratification of a taboo. Rather than a moral thought it is an immoral thought. And the morality is not aesthetically indifferent. the ‘moral’ thought is aesthetically void, it is actually bad art. That was what was wrong with so much Victorian art, as the Victorians worked towards the construction of a new civilisation redoing art like everything else.
Perhaps that is how we may value them, as primitive beginning of art.
Immoral art can bring aesthetic contemplation, pointing out new feature of the world for us to look at.

235 The moral power of money, the moralising superiority it can seem to bestow, the banality of the life of the so called trendy. A sort of emptiness. But emptiness and banality so often seem to be what morality is about. Morality must be unpleasant and uncomfortable, as in English protestant religion. .Piety is self denial, mortification,. What you ought to desire according to morality is something empty and stupid. The authority that goes with money.

316 Morality, not just to do with altruism, all sorts of conformism. Whatever one feels one ‘ought to do’. Perhaps one feels one ought to be out ‘having a good time’ fulfilling oneself. The conformist pressure on young people. Like to be trendy. To act without will or pleasure, automaton of duty.
Discomfort with which one may do what is ‘done’ respecting what is admired.
Colin Wilson writing about his correspondence with Ian Brady.
Brady the most offensive of men though not perhaps the worst. In a way a very brave man, who took his revolt to an extreme. Yet again a victim. What a hideous destiny! What a role to have to live! Guilt and desert are really meaningless.

361 []’s idea for the twentieth century. his artist tyrants, oligarchs of he spirit. Life and culture all to do with the exercise of the will. That culture would be a vehicle for the exercise of the will.
What is bad is the thwarting or frustration of the will, its subjection to negative morality. When we look at life from this angle we can look at different classes. As literary classes this can take on a purely intellectual aspect. Alternatively we can look at other social classes and see what they are able to do to achieve, see how Nietzsche’s proposal for his oligarchy of the spirit, produces ideas which themselves collapse into morality. Socialism for example, or anything, with the nature of power whatever pundits ideas come to rule.
So morality again , like Kant or Hegel. The need to escape this.
The Humean idea that because morality does not express any matter of fact, that it therefore cannot be wrong.
Kant’s idea that we can have morality as if it were true.
Scruton picking that up and secularising it.

AN 17 Plato. Power for the young, power for the old. But power for the young is not just for the young. Philosopher as priest, power seeking and bearer of knowledge.
Aristocratic, as seeking enjoyment. Not the incompatible enjoyment of those he hates. Ideals of enjoyment. What the ideal? The triumph hoped.
Get this straight. Without wanting to sanction it, I see it as an ideal of power. Not to presuppose the standard premises of the time, this gives power for those who succeed by them this a way of which they are unconscious.
And against you will be the evil demoralising suggestion that prevailing standards are good enough..
Overthrow of the Tarquins. That fantasy,
What they have is power, What I want is power. Measuring myself by other people's standards is the thing to be avoided. Every standard that denies power is the reality.
Old man’s tyranny, young person’s tyranny. Say I want no tyranny.

201 Little sister and her love, denial that what she seeks is power. To her some desires are just bad desires, to be suppressed, Heart and root of the wrong perspective.
This morality of the weak. But the weak are not some subject race. They are right here, scarcely different from the strong, they produce odious repressive morality, they are our very sisters.

206 Evil not the delight in murder of the traditional psychopath.

295 Attitudes to the underclass. Darwinist attitudes. Let them breed and die. See them as the common people, perhaps in need of the harsh raw moralistic remedies offered by protestant religion; without some moral code enjoining restraint it is said they succumb to vice, drink, drugs, idleness, dissipation. Look at that clause in the minds of the educationalists, before we respect their claims that what they do is necessary, ever keen to impose themselves on the minds of the young.

344 Feeling that bad taste is associated with morality. Mediocrity is morality.
In England the pressure towards mediocrity is experienced as morality. Problem with many academic subjects. Pressure to accept what one feels to be the inferior. So much to learn before one would do battle.
The claims of philosophers,. The world views concealed. The natural effect of democracy.

AF 233 the moralism of democracy, the idea that each is complete in himself. The politicians’ perspective, as if the ordinary person is all right in himself.

352 Slave morality, Cicero. Slave morality not to care, the acceptance of frustration,.
‘one cannot be happy when one’s wants are still unsatisfied.’ But is not frustration inevitable?
Admirability of Cicero’s culture. Cicero is no repressive old moralist,
The witty cynical hedonistic rich young men whom he criticises, what are we to make of them? Were they true free spirits or useless wastrels?
Centuries of Christian morality have led us to view things differently. For us the moralist may tend to be the enemy of life and enjoyment.
Christian morality different from Socratic and Ciceronian, Socrates and Cicero wanted to lead to true enjoyment Christian morality leads us away from that into other ways of experience. The ‘not to care’ the slave morality.
Revolutionary society as American society. Received wisdom, orthodox doctrine, avoidance of tragedy. Avoidance of tragedy because of the ‘not to care’. Reconciliation with death as cancelling everything out.
An absence of religion.
If death cancels all then nothing is urgent or important, not memory nor any mental state or aspiration,
Cicero as original creative figure, no mere imitation. An embodiment of philosophy.
Of course the same might be said for Nero.
In our own society the confusion of morality. Is it good for you or not? The drunken decadent may be valuable, more of a true guide to the truly desirable end.

376 Consider the moralistic judgment. A young girl is quoted as saying ‘my body is my own and I have the right to do what I like with it’.
Someone writes to the paper to say that if she claims that right she should accept the consequences and not expect state support is she has a baby.
That is the type of the obnoxiously moral judgement.
No one has any rights anyway, not even a right to life, certainly not to property, unless they are given by society.
Insofar as it makes any sense to demand any rights of society, it is reasonable enough to claim certain basic securities. And every elector has as much right to vote for these as the moralist.
But what the girl is saying is that no one has the right to moralise at her, or that she has the right to regard such moralising with indifference.
‘You ought not to sleep around’
My right to say to this ‘fuck off’
Interesting ethical question . the fundamental dispute is what? Which moral judgement are we to accept as right
1 The ‘you ought not’.
Or 2 the ‘fuck off’.
If 1 is right they judgments of type 2 are power powerless. And vice versa.
If we say both are right , that people make whatever judgments they like, then we are in a state of chaos.
To say 2 is right is to say more than that you have a right to utter it, it to say it should be to an extent effective.
And we cannot say all moral judgments ought to be effective, because they cancel each other out.
People make moral judgments, pass dogmatic utterances, which repel me strongly. Does that show they are wrong? They may seem to have a mysterious basis of certainly in the minds of the people that make them
So they suggest the hypothesis ‘if they were true’… if they were true the world would be a very disagreeable and hostile place. The principles would be unfathomable but would condemn one to a miserable condition of unhappiness and guilt.

1 Of moral authoritarians, ‘thou shalt’ thou shalt not’ ‘thou mayst’.
See how ‘thou mayst’ may entail a thou shalt not.
‘thou mayst’ set up as a moral authority and court of appeal ‘the permissive society’.
‘thou shalt not bind thyself for another, thou shalt not create thine own law.’
This is repressive morality.
Foundation of women’s liberation.
Fortify, strengthen yourself faith your permissive god, with his stern commandment ‘thou mayst’.
You need this authority, this father figure even, to keep your morale.
The things I most strongly object to about this society. Shall we call it repressive morality? The fact that the ideas which hold sway in the culture and around which our society increasingly moulds itself, are largely of an intellectually inferior quality. They are unintentionally repressive, ruling out alternatives the possibility of which is not even understood. Sickening pseudo liberation. In what way are ideas you do not agree with repressive? Through promotion of ignorance
Repressive morality closes off great areas of experience. It erects ‘thou shalt nots’ without, in the modern case, offering any clear reason or justification for doing so,
If people find this hard to understand let them reflect how much of human power and freedom depend upon quite complex intellectual skills

74 Nietzsche says that the German obsession with morality is ultimately of French derivation, an anti-Helvetian cult fostered by Rousseau and drawing inspiration from the contemporary French habit of imitating antique models, in the case the Stoics.

114 thesis. Every healthy young man is for a time an amoral devil.
Spenser on the foulness of vice, never repellently moralistic. Insofar as the vices are what he portrays them as, they are to be much avoided and despised.
Normally I would be attracted to vice, to the devil’s side. Vice seeming to represent instinctual freedom. But vice as serving the will. Spenser’s vices are what destroys the will, their connection with sin and disaster is not accidental. One can see such vices in others and despise them.
But when one is warned of vice its connection with disaster must always seem accidental, even a lie.

The vices. Vice as portrayed, perhaps one should think of vice as always having evil consequences otherwise it is not vice. If you can avoid the bad consequences of vice then your virtue is unsullied. Though Spenser is a highly moral writer, even didactically so, one does not notice the falsification of reality, the falseness involved in the moral interpretation of nature, that Nietzsche complains about so much.

138 morality can oppress, especially when it fails to appeal to a clear motive of self interest. Immoral, dishonest or criminal acts may be demanded by conscience.
Part of the trouble with utopias. Yes it would be nice if everyone was moral and observed moral laws, but sometimes the desire to break those laws can become an irresistible imperative, to deny which involves the suppression of personalities, of individualities,

250 mediaeval fantasies of damnation, deriving from childish experience. The naughty. regret, repentance. I now have nothing to repent. How could I ever be led into temptation who is consciously wicked? Chaucer’s Pardoner is said be critics to be dammed. but how would such a one see himself? A newspaper tale of a landlady in Yorkshire conspiring with her lover to murder her husband. the lover bashes his brains out with some heavy object; they kiss of over the dead body. How would such a one see herself? Does she adhere to some morality, some pagan values, dog eats dog, perish the weak, Satanism, aristocracy of crime or whatever? Or is she just led by temptation? Have I been led by temptation? I have certainly moved far from infantile terrors.

One may speak of the virtues of religion, but the heretics were the best people. So many of the saints were contemptible bigots and authoritarians. St Bonaventura. Could one base a public religion upon heretics?
Fury of Spanish anarchists against the Church, revenge of the heretics upon the Inquisition.

293 Master morality and criminality.
You need morality, universalisable rules, do you feel contempt for those you dislike & for protection against potentially harmful power.
Those people who are anti-Nietzsche are obscurantist. Once his thought has been articulated, what does it amount to to deny it?

316 The sacrifice of autonomy and independence that a lot of people are prepared to make for patriotic reasons, I just find unacceptable.
It is not morality so much I object to, I am not sensitive to disapproval, that is not what bothers me.
It is hard to enter into a feeling of fellowship with those whom we used to despise for their uncouthness and their chippiness. Yet they all have a point. Communism is vile but it expresses a feeling, a hatred, a frustration that is natural to people of a certain temperament brought up in certain circumstances. The villages of Surrey are charming but those brought up in the middle of Liverpool also have a point of view. And there is beauty in it too. If one is conscious of the contempt one causes one will need to react with some kind of aggressive philosophy.
Young people are politically immature, the young would often be happy to exterminate those who do not agree with them.
A people can traditionally become too soft, unwilling to defend itself. I am not unable to perceive the necessity of armies. In wartime, given adequate provision for conscientious, and other forms of objection, one could, given an emergency, quite reasonably be inspired to rally to the defence of the country.
Or so I tell myself.
AB 63 Anti-Semitism. The emotional core of it is that Jews are vermin and to be regarded with the emotions appropriate to vermin.
Think of the father as the source of one’s ideas of authority, of moral right and wrong. Our society says that anti-Semitism is a grave sin. But what emotional sense could I possibly make of that idea? I do not morally condemn my own father. Fascinating thought here. No higher authority than the father. See how Judaism itself is perpetuated,.
Moses and Monotheism.
The sons kill the father, the father returns as repressed material. Later the killing returns as repressed material
The contempt shown for the father cannot be shared. One imitates the father, adopts his sins or vices. Psychology of Judaism. How could you condemn the father? For the father is the ultimate source of all moral judgement. You defend him against the hostility of society, adopt his judgements, rational argument could not deconvert.

87 Darkness at Noon. Much as I despise communists, including Rubayshev,… It is not their amorality or immorality I despise but heir morality. ‘the end justifies the means’. This is not amorality, it is moralistic fanatical lunacy. Total cynicism one can understand and respect, but the destruction of everything, including all parts and aspects of oneself in furtherance of some magical abstract altruistic hope, seems completely contemptible. Such creatures seem scarcely human.
However, at least this was something. Which is to say it was the pursuit of an idea to its logical conclusion. Which is something one cannot say of the half baked diluted load of rubbish called eurocommunism. At least the Russians experienced the full emotional content of communism. From all its distortion of the personality it is there for all time as historical experience. I think the intensity of that experience gives the Russians a right to it. They invented this monster and the Italians and the French are just pissing about, they would not dare follow the Russian example with is extreme but developed and logical. Perhaps the Russians must find their own way out.

91 Eros Anteros and the social bond. Sade’s insights, Atrocious cruelty. Compulsory sexuality, they would imprison you, hang you, shoot you, yet they want to fuck you.
The social bond, loyalty, acceptance of police.
The girl attracted both to the policeman and to the criminal. Social loyalty. Your identification with your community. The erotic nature of this. Your relations with the women who compose it. The coercive nature of society as such.
Anteros, a word for a kind of anti erotic revulsion, a feeling which tends to dissolve the social bond.
Evident in the paintings of people like George Grosz and Otto Dix.
Love and strife. Those who claim to love humanity, sentimental butchers.
The development of anterotic sentiments make the coercive tendency implicit in the social bond starkly apparent.
The ideas in which one is expected to concur in respect of social loyalty require a corresponding emotion if they are to be acceptable or even tolerable. When people are expected to feel in a particular way, we have the phenomenon of compulsory emotion, which is essentially a kind of rape.
Imagine feeling a sexual attraction to the enemies of your freedom.
Sexual complementing.
Society, loyalty, the social bond, . Society with its police, its government, its law.
My anticollectivism is violent, I an rereading Stirner.
Collectivist tendency of the social bond. Society with its women who are loyal. Shaw’s Man and Superman. Opinions you despise.
Yet to be drawn in, accepted.
The cruel women of late nineteenth century decadence.
The community.
Sextasy. Love and cruelty and their close interrelation.
Nationalism, communities. Every community is cruel and oppressive
The attempt to get every individual to identify with some or other community, so that the direct experience, the raw experience of the cruelty and oppression will be considerably softened, palliated.
Torture, suicide, murder all social values. What is the reality of any act?

98& And the British military, unfortunately, I tend to see as opposed to myself, as well as to any enemy we have in common.
Patriotism. I do not have xenophobia. Certainly there is not another country to which I feel any inclination to give my loyalty. Every country has its own special faults. But in certain important respects England has failed me. I did not manage to develop sex-emotional harmony in adolescence.
It is not English women that are my other half in the Aristophanean sense. My love and desire has mostly been directed towards women from other backgrounds. Exogamy, fair enough, but it is subversive of nationalism.
An important element of this country is its demos.
Explicit patriotic emotion I tend to feel not as an affirmation of myself but as an attempt to coerce.
Patriotic emotion as an alien emotion attempting to mould coerce and oppress me.
Is freedom, as a lot of people see it, only voluntary servitude? Like Powell’s conception of it. Like the Russians putting up with Stalin.
Surrender of one’s will to that of another, and the delight in his will.

110& The Immoralist, (Gide) egoism, almost a refutation of the Wildean ideal.
Nietzsche’s distinction between the egoism of the weak and the egoism of the strong.
Stirnerism and the escape from spooks. Moral ideas. These can be an oppressive restraint on the pursuit of the will. But then what do we mean by moral ideas?
It is not the case that every attachment is restrictive in this sense. To free ourselves from spooks is not the same as freeing ourselves from all attachments. Especially voluntary attachments.
There we have two kinds of egoism. Egoism of the strong, emancipated from the restrictive effects of moral ideas, and that of the weak, which is so afraid of falling into such restriction that it renounces all attachment. Perhaps clinging to a doctrine, an ideology of egoistic self fulfilment, the egoism of the weak.
Such a doctrine renounces personal love for example
Egoism of the weak, so delicate that it has to erect a hard shell of defensiveness against the influence of other minds and what better for this than a collective ideology?
Getting strength against the influence of the individual mind from the power of the collective mind.
Revolutionary ideology and orthodoxy, communism and feminism.

130 Tyndale book, they dignify the quarrel between themselves and Dolly Walker by saying it rests on an essentially metaphysical difference.
It is I think true that the left are really the enemies of liberty. The book is very illuminating into the whole ideology of progressive education and the arguments in is favour, fallacious as they are.
The argument for a left wing ideology is that it is just an alternative to right wing, or elitist ideology, that it simply expresses the interests of the underprivileged, instead of the privileged. What they describe as right wing ideology is not really that at all. It is concerned with freedom more than the left wing ideology is. It is concerned with educating up to a level where rational criticism is possible, where the existence of alternative ideologies becomes apparent. Where choice becomes possible
Education is traditionally concerned with promoting such learning as a value,.
To condemn ‘academicism’ is to condemn education as such. The inculcation of ideology is effectively anti-education. They say that some ideology is inevitably inculcated. But that is not strictly true in the sense they understand it.
The elitism of scarcity. The importance of learning is a value in itself, it is not simply a question of helping the privileged few. Learning is a positive value, as much as money is,
The ideology of free choice doesn’t really amount to leant, it is impotent and ineffective. Permeated with ideas, but one is denied the tools to criticise those ideas.
Severity of judgment as the essential bad thing., the very root of madness. Such severity as springing from the power of an omnipresent ideology one does not know how to escape. The essence of paranoia. Ialdabaoth.
‘Bad’ Maladjusted’ ‘insane’.
The essential oppressiveness of the ideology of the left. Its frustratingness.
The rule of the academic.
Omnipresent ideology. can spring up in all sorts of places, strengthened by the power of conformism.
Freedom for the weak versus freedom for the strong. Contradiction. To preserve the freedom for the weak the weak must be kept weak.
Rousseauite freedom. Alliance between the peasant and the Tsar. Those who benefit from tyranny, from the suppression of freedom they never hope to enjoy.
The war against Ialdabaoth. The maladjusted. How free they will permit you to be maladjusted?
The way the Bolsheviks favoured the thieves.
Christian support of outcasts and sinners. The small sinners, the plebs and the chandalas. Those not in a position to criticise the basic philosophy. In fact on that level the more sinful the better, because the weaker.

Chrysal (Charles Johnson), the mid eighteenth century, so much less familiar a period than the Victorian era. The moralistic framework, the idea of 'virtue'. Sense of morality going back to Spenser and beyond. See the influence of this kind of thinking on De Sade. But see the idea of morality as remedy for all the vices of the age. Then of this cast of thinking as leading up to Kant. In such a healthy vigorous age, in which avarice, pride etc have such free range, it is morality which restrains the more destructive excess. But it was this age, with all its energy that produced the industrial revolution, profoundly disruptive in its effects. Quite obviously morality was no longer enough, and social reform became necessary. Charles Dickens. Sense of the English past.

160 Reading the Child’s Bible to my son, the New Testament. Jesus’ miracles. Strung all together like that see how much he had to do with cripples, beggars, lepers, blind men and the like, not to mention the recently dead.
Something distasteful here.. |of course one feels sorry for these people and would like to help them, but can we believe he did? The miracles are largely lies and delusions.
Why does this book have such a strong impact on children? Because they are told with some degree of authority to believe these miracles are true, ie that the natural order of things has been quite astonishingly broken. Old legends one accepts as fairy tales, works of imagination even the Old Testament. But this is ac well calculated assault upon one’s conception of reality. Completely false as it is, it is thereby very plausible.

It is a well directed attack on what we have recently learned as a rational attitude, The child learns to trust his reason and his commonsense, to disbelieve fairy stories, and here is the exception, so simple, because it insists that the breaking of the natural order is as amazing and astonishing as we in fact would find it.. the atmosphere of the gospels is not one in which wonders are everyday occurrences, the astonishing character of the miracles is insisted upon.
So I say that the that the intention of the gospel writers was subversive and corrupting in the highest degree. The assault is on reason and commonsense and at a most straightforward level.
Children read many fairy stories but this is not presented as a fairy story. It is s great lie.
Then the moral teaching as children understand it, be good’ ie non aggressive, yield to what other people want you to be. Obviously this has an occasional appeal to a certain side of the child’s mind.
The vision of Christ which thou dost see.
Is my vision’s greatest enemy, wrote Blake
I can really see his point. But the vision thou dost see is really present in the gospels. and is one of the most easily evident and obvious.
Jesus the prophet of passive goodness and beatitude. The paradox against the desire, to match the paradox against reality.
Emotional analysis. Analyse emotions, why certain emotions are applied to certain objects and consider why they should be restricted to those objects? And what virtue is there in their being so restricted? See to what extraordinary extent people are guided by custom.

The life of a soldier. Think how rigidly controlled it is in some respects.
Then think of the life of a householder and how much easier and more comfortable it becomes for him if he submits to the control of custom. If he takes as his own values those that are nearest to hand, if he seeks the rewards that all seek, if he enjoys the rewards he is expected to enjoy. If he expends all his energies primarily into his job, secondarily into his home and aspires to live like a ‘normal person’. How is he free? Perhaps he does not choose to exercise any freedom, but would he if he wanted to? Only the eccentric seems to me to be free.
Heroic death in battle, the death of a felon, analyse. Socially permitted objects of emotions,
Miracles. Gospels did corrupt reason, very directly, Gibbon reports that miracles became wildly accepted and daily occurrences.
Commonsense and reason were indeed corrupted and a regression to primitivism actually brought about.

189 One objects to moralism (which is not to say one is amoral or immoral). The demand to conform your mind. Something fundamentally intolerable and impossible. Adapt yourself to other people’s ideas, to ideas that are not your own. How can you do this? Does not your whole being recoil from it?
Luther, Solzhenitsyn.
Ye those compromised cannot understand the imperative of this recoil.
How can you live work by principles against which you revolt emotionally? Against something you feel to be wrong?
Living by conscience, by your ‘true will’
You revolt emotionally against moralistic constraints you can feel no adequate reason to accept
Moralism is by your standards immoral. Intolerable unjustified constraint. The God of the Jews and Christians is moralism incarnate. Master morality finds certain things certain situations, simply intolerable.

203 In considering morality, how ludicrous it seems that in my youth sex outside marriage was considered immoral. Morality comes down to this. The observance or otherwise of some empty ritual, some form of words to sanctify, sanitise, justify, natural human behaviour. Obviously the traces of Christianity are strongly present in this, the idea that everyone ought to believe and that it is immoral not to. Conformism, the idea that it is immoral not to conform.
The role of envy in moral judgments.

274 Moral attitudes of the twenties. Relation to the persecution of Crowley.

351 What is Nietzsche so strongly against? He is against the sense of guilt, the protestant conscience, the moralistic interpretation or reality, forced acceptance of other people’s valuations, and judgments.
Against God, the God of the Jews and Christians.
But he cannot force us to admire the strong. His message is for the individual not for society. You are potentially divine. The argument against him is that it led to an outburst of crime on a large scale. The behaviour of the nazis which broke accepted bounds. Still so much feared that people still talk about them in tones of indignant horror.
Justify your own desires. Socially this can be a dangerous doctrine especially in wartime. Recently we treat the nazis with contempt as the most distasteful kind of criminals. They who saw themselves as heroes we see as criminals. And that is our right.
The oppression of morality . Absence of morality could also be oppressive. One is not lobbied to take other people at their own valuation. Paradox. Moralism can be, an oppressive cancer, blasting the enjoyment of life. But we do need to be protected from the criminal propensities of others.
Not human freedom, but simply the wrongness of the idea that reason compels the movement in one particular direction.
Nietzsche’s is a doctrine addressed to the individual, it does not tell us who we have to admire.

390 Moral standards. The shadow of Kant. Kant's identification of morality with self denial, so alien to the Greeks and even to the English eighteenth century. Bishop Butler attempts to demonstrate the compatibility of egoism and morality. Kant led our culture astray. He did not have all that many predecessors in that respect, the moral outlook of an 'age of faith' is very different, and self denial and asceticism have a clear egoistic point to them.

The morality of Solzhenitsyn for example, that serves his own interest. one feels contempt for certain kinds of behaviour. One is not denying oneself a pleasure, one is repudiating something for which one feels strong aversion.
An effeminate homosexual may give an initial impression of wit and rebelliousness later to reveal profound commonplaces. ‘Sin’ in this sense is essentially connected with self hatred. You involve yourself in what you forbid yourself, you break your own rules, rules serving your own interests.

AC 16 I remember the unhappiness I felt when I was nine. I remember the bad conscience, the guilt, the sense of loss of innocence. I used to brood in bed at night. ‘thou shalt not steal’ was a very powerful taboo, second in scope to the ‘thou shalt not kill’
Oppressiveness of those commandments, as Blake insisted.
Contemplating my son I am led to wonder how much my analysis of those memories of unhappiness is strictly correct. Am I right in attributing it to religion as I do? How would my son himself understand my story?
Memory, biography, self dramatisation what I suggest is, might he perhaps experience such unhappiness, if not now in a year or twos time, despite his enlightened upbringing? How great is the genetic component in character and experience?
Is the mystery of these things far deeper than I for one generally suspect?

81 Lecky (History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne) . I find the question of morals quite a central one. Morals, values, judgments, they pervade they help determine experience. Look at their history, how different they might be. One finds rare exceptions, .like Greek nudity or the extremity of cruelly at the Roman games.
What is normal is not necessarily desirable nor is an aberration necessarily to be avoided.
Lecky lacks the highest original genius, He apologises for a lot of the malice in humanity, speaks of corruption, essential amiability etc.
But I would say that amiability is one of the most relative of all virtues.
Sometimes eighteenth century enlightenment writers can be deliberately superficial. They choose a judgement and stick by it because it is part of their whole philosophy or outlook. Enlightenment involves a certain cruelty done to the world. When it is simple it may be because it simplifies.

105 Lecky I have to admire his erudition and his scope. There is interest in a history of morals, moral valuations make the most tremendous difference to the value obtained from experience.
The monastery exalted servile virtues, labour and obedience, despised by the ancients. So we have abeit as two entirely different kinds of experience.
To fulfil a moral ideal rather than falling beneath it.
Whatever your life situation the ideas you think about it can make the most absolute different to the satisfaction you obtain from it.
The more history you read the deeper and fuller your understanding of this.
Often the competitive type of person plays by the most simplistic set of rules. They want everyone else to accept their rules, otherwise the success they crave loses some of its value for them.
As against the social vision of specialisation, value judgements are charges that can be made and imposed immediately.
Some points of interest from Lecky.
The military spirit that came into western Christendom with the crusades, that which I tend to see as marking the origins and directing force of our own distinctive civilisation, is attributed by Lecky to Mohammedan influence, and the response to the Mohammedan threat.
I would say Islam is a far more essential a factor in the development of our civilisation than is generally realised. The crusades were motivated by desire for the treasure house of Islam, as much as modern soviet society by desire for the treasure house of the west.

Nietzsche attacks Luther as if he were a mere Christian revivalist ie reviving the spirit that animated original Christianly, something best left to die. But I see Nietzsche as a direct heir of Luther. Luther objected to the whole structure of mediaeval Catholicism, ie of Christianity, because on certain points it overwhelmingly revolted his moral sense.
Nietzsche did the same at a later stage. Luther retained the dogmatic structure of Christian belief but infused a new moral preoccupation into it,. Lecky, Frazer and others see [] as recovering certain pagan virtues that had been submerged in many centuries of oriental otherworldliness and superstition.
Luther’s rejection of authority is generically different from the Jewish rejection of pagan authority. It is different from either the Old Testament or the works of the Fathers. What Luther did was to reject authority on the basis of the clear realisation that the claimed ground for that authority is specious. This is not resentment or superstition. It is a new claim for power and authority. It is a potential basis for a ruling race.
Authority is authority, in the ancient world it was founded on power, or accident of birth. The Catholic church rejected natural power and set up a supposed ground for authority in dogmatic religion. In perceiving the speciousness of this ground the protestant comes into power. An alternative ground, based on a sort of honesty.
It is as if the pre Christian set up has returned though become self conscious in the face of error, In a world riddled with error and superstition truth has a natural right to rule. A right superior to the old pagan right of superior force, Because force is not what is claimed, but a specious right.

119 Morality. One view, partly deriving from Christianity is to view all morality as restraint, and to think that if you have ‘no morality’ you will be a ruthless egotist. Same as the Christian sin obsession, the idea that that only Christianity holds us back from the depths of murderous savagery such as perpetrated by the Russians in the thirties & the Germans in the forties, but egoism is morality. It is values. If you will to be a great destroyer those are your values, that is your morality,

192 significance of memory. The philosophy is not just a maxim but the injunction to keep this maxim permanently in the memory. Otherwise the significance of all the actions performed in accordance with the maxim will be lost.
Importance of memory. The present moment is vanishingly small, and the future is unrealised. The great oppression that is moralism. Robbing you of your experience, calumniating it in your memory.
Do what thou wilt, the only sin is restriction. The cynical barrister, Jacob Frank. Sabbati Zevi.
Immorality comes when the fog of ignorance descends, when the negative judgement comes into play.
Moral indignation and depression. Why so upset, so outraged by this society? Why do I find so unacceptable what some people seem quite able to tolerate, why am I so conscious of persecution? Presumably because I do not feel I can milk this society.
I feel depressed, consequently over sensitive to some things, I have no consciousness of power to gain only of what I can lose.

209 The wild beast is dangerous and one shoots him, The hypocrite is disgusting because half the time he believes he is a Christian. The lawyer presents himself as a pillar of morality. Yet he will happily take any side. His real interest is money. The bourgeois too thinks of himself as valuable to society because he is rich. Element of sanctimonious hypocrisy. One has money and interprets that as a moral position, a view of life.
It appears that morality is a sham. Yet it is disgusting because it is not fully consciously a sham. People condemn themselves out of their own principles. There is no need for any extraneous code to do so. When respectability and crime so merge that respectability becomes criminal and crime respectable. That is rotten. If it is good to be free from repressive morality, moral corruption involves repressive mortality in an intense form,
In the light of the rehabilitation of morality, may it not be possible to revaluate Kant's theories?
Egoism is a form of morality. The conditions of knowledge and understanding, these are variable. One takes up a stand, this is as it were one’s morality, one’s consistency.
Even pure selfishness requires a context.
Morality and power, Feebleness and infantilism of the simplistic Christian morality of unselfishness. The conscious hypocrite and the unconscious hypocrite. How can one make the distinction?
Egoism of the saint, that of the child he takes and enjoys as a gift of his fantasy figure, God. He does nothing for himself in a direct manly fashion.

215 Golo Mann on Hitler. The intensity of his egoism. The world which must give way, the resistance to himself which must be overcome. The exhilaration when the nazis came to power.. Hubris, crime, revolution, the demagogue.
Golo Mann, a certain shallowness His Christian moral interpretation of Hitler is inadequate, far too simplistic. He does not do Hitler justice how could he? But the morality of revolution is a European tradition what right has anyone to condemn it as simple crime? If so then Cromwell was the great criminal monster, the regicide, who started the bad tradition. If we are not to tolerate revolution then what about war? It all comes down to a question of where you draw the line.
Moral issues are far deeper than this, issues like the right of rebellion. Solzhenitsyn type questions. The essential evil in nazism was its socialism, the surrender to egotist interests. When people give up their freedom in a spirit of self sacrifice. Also there was a greater seriousness in nazism than Mann allows. Corruption even has its logic. Egoistic morality is a form of morality.
Golo Mann is probably wrong about nazism. It is not ‘selfishness’ , egoism, that brings evil, that is essentially immoral, but unselfishness.
It is the individual’s surrender of his identity in the collective, when the individual voluntarily surrenders his interests to that of the community.
Sin brings its own punishment. An immoral act is not a selfish act as such. It is an act against conscience. An act against principle for which you will tend to despise yourself,
The journalist who surrenders his mental independence
Bukharin, Zinoviev.
It is true as Plato has it that immorality is a kind of disorder. Those swept away by fanatical enthusiasms are likely to be guilty of it.
Golo Mann’s position is far shakier than he realises, He attacks egoistic assertion. What restraints would he put upon it? On what would he ground them? What would he put in its place? If we don’t have egoistic self assertion we have deference to authority, but what authority? And on what can it be based? Is not the champion of freedom the same type as the potential dictator?
The whole of classical civilisation was based on egoism.

280 Imagine a person with different values, one who actually feels he ought not to, or ought not to want to. How different would life appear?
Your will and desire will of course be obstructed by laws, and the will of others. But the standard of my behaviour is my desire, not some moral ideal of what my desire should- be. Kant’s ‘beauty of the moral law within’. But one needs no moral law beyond do what thou wilt.
If a moral law is conceived as a corrective to one’s desires ‘I ought to remain faithful to one person, even though I want not to’. ‘I ought not to kill, to steal etc even though I feel tempted’ it would lead to what I would regard as a strange kind of life.
If I really believed in a moral ideal I suspect I would fulfil it perfectly. Life would then be intolerable.
People say morals are necessary when they mean only that the police are necessary.
Look at the people and they actually seem to embody a moral ideal. As if their biological humanity is subordinate to and idea for which they stand.
The law of do what thou wilt. Murder, rape etc. The Christian believes in the beast within, as if remove the restraint of morality and barbarous horror would ensue.
I do not murder because I do not want to, not because I feel I ought not.

173 Objective wisdom is the wisdom of the master. It is attempted in Faust II.
The cruelty of the classic world, the cruelty of Nazis, the cruelty of Ponymarev. The existence of he bad does not destroy the good. Cruelty in the very nature of things. The point of view of those who suffer, must it mar the joy of those who revel? Behaviour that is quite acceptable in one setting becomes abominable in another. A scoundrel in one community is a decent person in another. Taboos. For one community certain actions are unclean and unforgivable, to another they are normal. Yet how to reach objective understanding? How can it be in one’s interest to understand these forces as they are? One must have sufficient power not to have an overwhelming interest in taking sides. The Greek attitude towards suffering contrasted with the Buddhist, both contrasted with the Christian.

45 Man moral, woman amoral.
Consider this.
Nietzsche was moral, his philosophy was one of self justification. But there is not the dualism, the conflict, the guilt.
The amoral alternative what is that? It is lack of complete confidence in the rightness of one’s will.
To be moral is to be master, pace Humpty Dumpty. Surely it is slavish to accept that what gives you happiness is a crime? However happily you accept it.
The master wants to be lawgiver. He wants to be in charge of the value he sets upon his actions and experiences. Consequently he will not delight in naughtiness after the fashion of the child. Guilt to him is something hardly to be borne.
Weininger felt he had to reject woman and the senses. But that which satisfies is surely good? Say satisfaction is possible without the guilt he felt? With the sense that a violation of the Kantian rule is immoral or amoral and therefore enslaving? One notes the prominence of neo-Christian Kantian type ideas in certain intellectual circles, as with Winch.
In the establishment the type of the amiable rogue is well known but he is immoral or amoral.
If fascism was an attempt to set up a pagan form of morality it was singularly unsuccessful.
The law of Thelema is not immoral or amoral or unmoral. All such qualities presuppose an established moral code to which there are varying degrees of indifference or hostility.
One does not want to live as some kind of fringe creature or parasite on society. Nietzsche quite failed to solve the political question.
A new moral ideal.
The degree of morality in the mentality of the general public is a puzzle to me. There is the morality of respectability which one presumes would not be explicitly acknowledged.
Respectability ie more or less legally acquired wealth brings with it a proportional increase in virtue. One could actually say that it is virtue.
By the bourgeoisie if you do not have money, ie are not respectable, then you are an object of great suspicion. Every vice you have is emphasised
I think particularly of the modern Conservative party, the immoralities and vices of those in authority are considered excusable.

55 the principal medium for the expression of malignity is morality. The moral judgement one feels oneself at the receiving end of hostile moral judgement.
Morality and malignity. The hostile world one finds oneself in. My own experience in my youth. Obvious fact that other people did not feel as I did

120 Jude the Obscure (Hardy). Like Gissing’s heroes he is hampered by morality. But to be without such morality might seem to be the mark of the low, the immoral, criminal and undifferentiated masses.

127 Morality springs from self interest. Thoreau, his anarchism. An altruistic morality is hardly conceivable. The renunciation of the desire to hold slaves, for example. Morality the idea that a free man accepts certain restrictions on his will, that this morality is a possible reflection of his pride. Morality in this sense is what we might call the inner despot. I restrict myself because I want others to restrict themselves. any principle which permits slavery for example, would be a potential threat to my own freedom and independence.
In England liberty has generally been defended by reference to tradition.
The fact is that one who has supported slavery is not thereby necessarily rotten.
Inconsistency can be rotten, logical incoherence. That can lead to the worst kind of despotism and oppression, arbitrary mental and moral tyranny.
But Thoreau’s anarchism, like that of many anarchists, is limited by his moralism
One’s moral principles are one’s own defence. The way one defends oneself against the oppression of others justifies a righteous anger against the infringers of one’s liberty justifies pressure against such oppressors, sets forces in motion to that effect.
A very abstract rule was felt to be the defence of American liberty
Rights of man were one’s own defence and any qualification was a threat to oneself they are his pride and his morality because they are the highest level of power to which he can aspire without danger.

162 Effects of the new puritanism, this obsession with what is called child sex abuse. Choirboys.
Touches kisses.

294 But actually I think Christian morality depresses such things as the aesthetic instinct. It turns the will against the self, against instinct. It is not a morality of power, but a morality of guilt, which cripples power.
Peirce’s conception of Inquiry as the drive to be rid of the pain of doubt.
The purport of Christianity is that pain is to be endured. What we would call slave morality the unsastisfactoriness of a position is not to be taken as an injunction to persist and persevere until that is overcome. The injunction is that the instincts must be mortified. This stops the intellect in its tracks. One is to accept authority not to aspire to inherit it,
For one way of easing the painfulness of doubt is to yield to an authority. A society in which such submissiveness is universal will lose control over fundamental values. Art will degenerate.

134 The lack of aggressive competitiveness that tends to fall back upon self justification or the need for it. Not competing healthily and naturally, but trying to secure attention almost as the moralist does, bringing an ought into it. The moralistic artist tries to secure attention (and to escape responsibility) by pretending to be motivated by universal benevolence. But until he has power it will be an impotent benevolence.
Hence the appeal to a moral imperative, which is supposed to have hold upon you, as well as upon himself.
What is the feeling of responsibility? Feeling that things could be other than as they are, and that it is within your power to alter them. Identify completely your motivation in its fullness and you have no more responsibility.
Competitive aggressiveness, a game that it is not really too hard, too much of a challenge, to learn to play. This as a value, freezes current values, It militates against creative originality. What one should admire is the self sufficiency of those who live by their own values..

167 Ranterism, moralism as morality. Some kinds of morality, like non stealing are useful to have. They keep you out of trouble. ‘it is wrong to steal’ our primary school headmistress used to say. But morality is not something rational, there is no moral knowledge. To pretend there is is to promote a lie. Moral ideas are a justification of morel habits. Moral habits need to be inculcated by force, moral ideas will follow. Moral ideas considered in isolation from moral habits are an open invitation to amoral ideas and thence amoral habits. Why do some people wish to steal and kill? One idea that still holds some sway is that of evil, of sin, of the evil will. But this so called evil will is often merely an energetic will springing from emancipation,. One may desire to steal and kill because the reasons one is given for not stealing or killing seem such transparent humbug. You need to prove you are free. not because you feel like Raskolnikov, above morality but because to abstain from crime seems to you to involve acquiesce in a system which you cannot, in honesty to yourself, accept. You become obsessed with proving your independence of it. Thus moral ideas actually create crime. The way ideas can obsess. A false and inadequate justification of some natural function or institution can take such a hold on the mind, can seem so inescapable that to escape the oppressiveness of the idea people will pervert or eliminate the function or strive to destroy the institution.
Christian and socialist views of the world given a stamp of legitimacy by Freud – you must accept a large dose of guilt in your view of things. Ie you will never feel entirely right about it. The painfulness of orthodoxy is just something you have to learn to live with,.

40 American democracy and rights of man

123 Marx and Stirner. Adam Smith presupposes egoism. A science begins by assuming people are self interested, that moral ideals are not to be regarded as explaining human behaviour. Early socialism criticises this, it reinstates ideas like the 18th century French enlightenment, English scholarship was generally sound in the 18th century. Early socialism refused to see man as a brutally self interested being., ie it made the mistake of the French enlightenment that De Sade exposed. Marx, influenced by Stirner, did not make that mistake. He however made self interest connive at the destruction of egoism.

229 serial and mass killers .To some people’s minds they are the worst criminals, I do not think so. I judge them as mere savages.

253 so I am not evil in the sense of a destructive being, motivated largely by hate. I have had to be ruthless. I have had at times to exhibit great defensive hostility. But the aim, one presumes, was the accumulation of such power as should be used for a good end. That may sound a bit fatuous, what after all is good? But there is love within me. And the desire to make happy. But who can understand? Moralists,

44 certain ways of life, quite aprat from the indisputably criminal, are popularly presented as falling under certain deplorable patterns, the enthusiasms of drug users, or drinkers, of idlers etc.
the prosperities of virtue and the misfortunes of vice. The patronising approach to other people’s values. The moral tyranny of the orthodox. The propaganda for virtue as if it is established wisdom. As if the conventionally virtuous understand more about the way of life and values of those they call sinners than those sinners do themselves. They have charge of nearly all the propaganda. They claim to understand and reject the viewpoint of the ‘sinner’ who is portrayed as a sensualist, ruled by his lusts.

163 Orthodoxy always reinforces itself by claiming virtually the whole of morality on its side.
Jesus, simultaneously orthodox and rebel.
The fatuous idea that present society, here and now, is especially enlightened. That the realisation of democracy (which is by no means the same as freedom) has introduced some kind of perfect regime, that because of democracy we should acquiesce in the present order of things, that is the present power structure…

179 Perelman quotes the Talmud to the effect that contradictory moral decisions may both be right. Henry More held against Descartes that different metaphysical systems may each be compatible with natural science and its discoveries. But vide Billy Budd, perhaps the tragedy is that any moral decisions would be wrong.

231 who are the weak who are the strong? At some times one is weak sometimes one is strong. Attack on the morality of the weak. Insofar as one does not identify with the interests of those weak.
Be strong or perish. Perish, ie cease to be what one is.
Objection to the morality of the weak insofar as it is directed against strength in which we have an interest. To point out its operation is to overcome it. Strength of a certain type of enjoyment, or a successful life. This we might call conscious will to power. Does the will of the weak differ from this?

Yet another point about moral criticism. Point is to convince even people who do not feel a natural impulsion to our position.
To repel the operation of morality of the weak upon what we conceive to be our strength.
Morality of the weak as macro and micro. The fairly obvious macro operation in society.
Other people’s values springing from their own other circumstances can take the form of a morality of the weak ie directed against my own strength,
In adhering to alien values one still pursues one’s own power, only one is fouled up. To an extent one is of the weak.
Values different from those that appear true and in your interest.
Say you identify yourself with some monstrous self lacerating virtue.
Alien morality springs from other people’s interests. Its ‘of the weak’ character comes from the hostile manner in which I experience it, its appeal to factors outside my own intuition of my powers, This the micro.
It is not for me to tell people what their true interests are, or should be.
Morality, little Jack Horner. Nietzsche’s good and moral side.
Sex morality. The disappearance of prostitution. The drawing of the line. Interesting question the drawing of that line. Where vice begins. Vice has its place, a clear position in the hierarchy, but as vice.
Macro and micro. Macro the voyeur, the possibility of the voyeur. Talk of the evil effects of slave morality in society and we make a good moral point.
Solzhenitsyn is moral, Nietzsche is amoral. But Nietzsche’s main criticism of Cervantes is that he did not use his great power of overthrow the Inquisition.
Alien values and the ideals promoted. Idea of the morality of the weak as a weapon. Nietzsche does not want to use that as a weapon.
Alien values. All the competing ideas in democratic chaos.
To a certain extent a sympathy with strength. The may be social where it is moral or it may transcend what is moral. Sympathetic appreciation of various forms of strength. With weakness he does not have the same kind of sympathy, partly because of its manifest unhappiness. Weakness of the cripple or the abortion.
Effects of morality in society springing from deficiency of power. Acceptance of alien values, the living of a ‘moral’ life.
Havel writes on the corruption of life in the ‘post totalitarian state. But what alternative was there for Czechoslovakia?
The ‘moral ideals of life as against what appears to be naturally right, Legalisation of dope.

98 La Dolce Vita. I understand why people find so much to talk about Fellini. Though the film is boring at times, altogether it is very thought provoking. I remember its reputation for immorality way back in 1959 or so. It is like an immorality play. Insofar as it has a moral it is diabolic.
The way culture has moved on many things have been forgotten.
Liberating feeling of immorality not to do with the creation of a new morality. The feeling of the Italian renaissance, or pagan Rome, was the true Nietzschean affirmation. People today have grown stupid. The pride in sexual liberation. Before the so called sexual revolution sex could function as a liberating force. It liberated from morality and stood for a different set of values, true affirmationist’s values, Normalisation and all the agony aunts destroy that power. Liberation as Henry Miller conceived it is not the same. The mediaeval morality play or a poem like Piers Plowman portrays the way of virtue and the way of vice, lilies and roses.
The way of vice, rightly understood, is the true joy of life. This truth is not reversed, if we simply take some of the enjoyments from the Devil’s side and moralise them, turn them into virtue. Attempt to break the Devil’s back. It is the morality that is objectionable not just the condemnation of sensual delights.
Fellini’s partying folk photogenic and filmic. As a way of life, to seek happiness in such frivolity seems a mistake. Like cocaine addiction, a constant promise without real satisfaction. Like gambling too. Stimulation of desire (all the pretty girls) but constantly frustration. Like another kind of virtue, with all its polite conversation. I suspect that some forms of behaviour are not actually enjoyed except by naïve young girls, they are not even immoral, only addictive, leading on by the stimulation of desire.
But when Marcello suggests the orgy then the spirit of misrule coming in, with perhaps the hint of moral blasphemy.. . the Catholic church well knew what he was up to, he saw a banner outside a church in his home city of Padua ‘pray for the public sinner Federico Fellini’.
A modern mind find s it hard to imagine him preaching immorality, all they can understand is a new form of morality.
The appearance of Steiner seems crass, so heavy handed and allegorical. But when Steiner kills his children then himself, that saves it. He is right to destroy such a fatuous moral.
‘Emma, rejection of her ‘suffocating maternal love’. Right too, No moral here.

366 Any admonition to take my responsibilities seriously was rightly resisted and resented. Altruism stunts the soul. We must pursue our own paths, irrespective of what tragedy might befall

9 Sometimes bad writing, because it is badly written can seem to be the voice of morality (or goody two shoes). A piece of really crude criticism for example. I have a feeling that to object to it is part of my evil temperament. Morality is against the self. Feeling one has about morality and why one opposes it. The so called good angel.
If one were to choose to be moral and thereby win the approval of one’s imaginary parent.
Youth and age. It is hard to imagine how age can ever approve of youth. Certain types of young people it is hard to imagine could ever have been like those now middle aged. That there is anyone middle aged who can look at them, smile indulgently and say ‘I was like that’. I think of a certain type of agitated youth.

26 De Sade as moralist. Precursor of Solzhenitsyn. The Sadian villain is not morally despicable. This is not to say that according to De Sade there is no such thing as being morally despicable.
The morally despicable it he who is despicable to himself, the oppressor who sincerely believes he hates oppression. The callous brute who believes himself kindly and sympathetic the thieving, murdering cheat who sincerely believes in virtue. People who stand condemned by their own standards.
To hold up a mirror. To make indignation consistent. De Sade exposing the shallowness of the whole enlightenment.

80 Notable facts about Durkheim. Influence of Kant in his moral view of reality. Influence of orthodox Judaism with its rule bound moralising way of life. Commitment to French republicanism ie trying to clarify the beliefs of a committed egalitarian republican.
I was inspired to read it by what struck me as a very odd view put forward by Alex Mercer.
When I put forward a Darwinian view about not promoting genetic defects on the ground that it is better to be healthy, that this is happier and more fulfilling, he said that this selfish way of looking at life is not the only one. People with various disabilities could contribute to society, he said,. He mentioned ideas like ‘pulling your weight in society’. How you live not just for yourself but for society as part of a collective.
The peculiar results of such ideas with respect to disabilities. Disabilities may be seen as good. Or is there another way of looking at it? Are there bad desires? Does morality come into it after all?

118 Over coming antisemitism. Nietzsche and his followers. Pound and Ginsberg. To meet someone who actually likes and supports you, who is on your side. This can be a destroyer of prejudice. A natural destroyer, not a mere yielding to morality. Think of morality in this regard. Antiracist morality, suppression of true feelings.

125 When is a hidden motive not a hidden motive? When it is unpalatable. Some people feel threatened by certain ideas. Like the power of certain ideas. Other people feel happy and satisfied with those same ideas. The former tell them that theirs is just a phase in understanding.
In place of the egoistic interpretations of the eighteenth century we have collectivist type of explanations in what was thought of as the illusion is taken for realty.
So all the discoveries of the psychologists are taken as void. Orthodoxy, for example, may be taken as correct. Only that you do not understand it. So (in 18th century consciousness) there is a massive falsification of human motivation.

150 Hegel and Kant. Hegel teaching us to love Big Brother. Morality with Kant is set against the individual will. It is something to which one conforms insofar as one desire to be moral, Hegel sees it as something one should love, that should immediately chime in with inclination.
Antiracism is modern morality. The idea that one should not only accept it, as modern morality, but actively like it. That not to like it is itself immoral. There is a real offensiveness her, what I would regard as a fundamental lie. A denial of human nature. Denial of the truth of feeling.

153 Suggestion that society is itself repressive. Suppose it is? It does not therefore have to be overthrown. Perhaps it is pointless trying to construct one that is not so.
The violence of some people’s imagination perhaps needs the restraint of some rigid morality.
The overthrown of error. The idea that this is possible, against the idea that it is impossible. The idea that it is impossible is the one we have to oppose,. Psychologically it is a form of repression. That there is no truth, that one has to accept authority, that there is no escape, this is error.

221 Natural selection, social Darwinism, bad genes, the future of the race. How much must one care about? Only a bit. One wants something to flourish. Survival of the fittest, all very well, and perish the weak, but not for oneself and one’s own. What is the crown of creation? What is the secret of the universe? Not morality, certainly, which is what Kant thought it was.
Nature has produced something, the ego and its own, its task is to enjoy, using all the rights and privileges history has accumulated.
What currently is, whether or not it could be better, is hardly important. All progress is only a means to an end. If me and mine achieve something that is all that is important, all that is possible. Commitment for some universal value is only morality. As such thin and futile.

281 Of morality. Its criticisms of feeling. Whatever you feel, not necessarily to be expressed. As with racist and sadistic thoughts.
TV prog last night about ‘wild men’ in Texas. Going to the wilderness for a bit of psychobabble about recovering masculinity. Learning to cry etc. Note how this links up to morality. Complete compatibility with feminism. Making feminist ideology seem something other than morality, other than moralism. Enlisting feeling in its support, Of course it can be done.
The real pressure of morality, not only to observe it but to feel it, or at least to pretend one feels it.

292 Reflections on Napoleon. Tolstoy's view of him as a monster is substantially correct. The doctrine that the end justifies the means. All that killing shrouded with a cloak of virtue. Morally there is no difference between Napoleon and Himmler. Both had a vision of the kind of Europe they would like to see, both were prepared to kill on a mass scale to get it.
Napoleon's vision of a Europe of Frenchified egalitarianism, is no better, no more attractive, than Himmler’s vision of a Europe free of the Jews. Of course such a view is offensive to individual Jew one knows and likes. But in any war one is trying to kill people to whom in other circumstances one might be very attached.

314 the idea that Napoleon was not great, that he was a product of circumstances, that he was puffed up upstart, ridiculously pompous and conceited, that the worst thing of all was that the considered himself to be a good man while bringing about such massive slaughter, that this makes him morally contemptible in a way that even Hitler was not, that he was stupidly blind to the suffering he caused, etc etc. this may leave out much that is of the greatest importance about the man, such as the military genius shown early in his career, but that he was a monster has long been my own instinctive reaction. I find him dislkeable, just because of this great European delusion that he was so great and good. I hate the concept of him, he is like some policeman, some supporter of conscription, some prohibitionist who expects your love. And his grandeur and glory, like making himself emperor, his regal airs and gestures, his magnificence, strike me as just vulgar and stupid. How could he think to join the old aristocracy of Europe? He was an odious authoritarian. However I feel sorry for him in defeat, defeat should have humanised him.

325& morality , virtue. The disharmony of morality with the will. Morality experienced as a coercive pressure, Morality, virtue. Against morality, evil, the Devil. Identify the coercive element in all that is expected of you, What is desired of you, what women desire of you,
idea that one should think and feel other than as one does think and feel.
All these coercive elements should be made explicit. Thus what is demanded of you may be easier to resist.
What man demands of woman, what man finds attractive in woman. This may itself go against current morality. The traditional feminine, passive, receptive.
Western civilisation and constant change of standards.
To those outside
Or on the fringes of that civilisation it must usually seem decadent.
Indians, for example learnt certain standards from the British. The standards themselves constantly change. We keep moving the goalposts, so by past standards we are in a sad state of decadence. But the real dynamic of our civilisation produces constant change. Not the change of chaos, there is a meaning to be found. The meaning lies in resistance to oppressive constraint. This needs to be clarified, articulated in art and literature.
Where there is evil there is resistance to evil So a civilisation cannot be completely given over to evil.
It might be objected that I only put over a party view.

Morality, virtue, instinct. Morality may sees itself as in opposition to instinct, but ultimately it wants a joyful acceptance, it wants to contain instinct, ie you are to love big brother, big sister, big nurse.
Morality and desire, Morality versus desire.
Idea that the two would coincide. These moral judgements that clash with desire. Where do they come from, who comes up with them? Important question.
A woman as containing a lot of these moral ideas in herself. Woman as virtue. One accepts what one believes to be reasonable. Looking back on the absent paradise. Morality as restraint upon desire. Pity. Living in a moral way,. The Kantian imperative. Winning the approval of others. A way that is intrinsically not very enjoyable except for this one factor. To please others one may go along with it. But the real pressure is to believe.
This is where the really objectionable comes in. An assault on basic belief, on what one does believe insofar as one has any basic beliefs or ideals at all . An assault on one’s basic being, on the core of what one is and does.
Schoolmarminess of some women. Desire to coerce men according to their own moral judgements. Seeing their own function as the taming of men, perhaps.
All unease. all sense of threat. Forms of paranoia. Entirely justified, the moral way of life, self sacrifice.
Slave morality. The slavish way of life, in thrall to women’s concerns.
The object is presumably not to reduce man to a state of depressed and slavish impotence, but to make the virile and assertive in a new way, that is the way desired of women. Aim being total conversion.

356 TV prog the other night about Corbin Kentucky where they ran the niggers out of town in 1919…..
One black said they are losing out, impoverishing their lives by not mixing with blacks. He expressed a vigorous democratic American ideology. Optimistic and energetic. But is he right? Might it make sense to suggest he is wrong? That his view is moralistic wishful thinking? What he is saying is that acceptance of the ideology (democracy and equality) brings a richer life. But might this be a circular thought? Those who believe most strongly in equality are those who gain from it.
For the others it is a moral injunction with a specious claim to factual truth.
But remembering it is morality its aim is to restrain desire. Why should I like a black man being here if I don’t? Why should I like anything I don’t?
In a despotism one accepts one’s powerlessness, accepts that the conditions of society were not made by oneself. One may therefore practice certain virtues.
Dostoyevsky complained that Russian juries refused to convict because of their Christian compassion.
One could hardly be a racist under a despotism where one could hardly conceive being able to remove conditions of life one disliked.
But once you did conceive yourself as possessing that power you are free to imagine yourself as capricious tyrant, getting rid of whatever you dislike. You might imagine yourself as an absolute monarch, imposing your own will upon the world. Restraint upon your will would only be moral restraint.

AJ 5 Basic theme of Dostoyevsky’s Devils , that the freethinking idea of the parents produce a race of monsters for children.
Of philosophy it is often said that it over simplifies the great complexity of life by taking some principle to absurd conclusions. Thus Berkeley denies matter, Skinner denies mind, Leibniz denies interaction, some say Wittgenstein denies the whole realm of private experience, Nietzsche is said to deny morality,
Many people of my generation feel we were unjustly curbed and repressed in our upbringing. But we imagine we could do without restraints, because we have built up certain seemingly civilised habits. The habits we take for the bedrock of our personalities, take them for granted. But, it is argued, if you remove the restraints which we found so irksome the next generation will display a level of vice which appals us.
Freethinkers it is said, are dangerous because they aspire to remove principles with sometimes may like structural walls of houses. Perhaps the house stands for a while after the removal of such a wall.
But one might suspect that nothing could have been worse than communism, and even that worked, after a fashion.

17& the way of guilt. What can make it seemingly acceptable? Only belief, giving the form of a slave morality. One accepts values from society. Where society is master and bestows its approval or disapproval. This alternative perspective, these alternative perspectives. They need to be brought out in the full and complete clarity so that the choice is made as plain as possible.
Slave morality. Where it is felt this is the right thing to do. Values come not from the individual will, but from outside, they are not to be subjected to comprehensive criticism because there is s a form of truth that gives them a hold on the individual. Criticisms of such truth will be rational or scientific. Can such a concept hold up. The making explicit.

325 The Nietzschean and Stirnerite position is that repression and morality are a lie. One claims the right to act irresponsibly on the basis of truth. Moral repression is not only irksome, it is loathsome cancerous, an attack on the very basis of what ought to be life’s principles.

359 moral repression. Ideas one associates with repressive morality, ideas used in criticism of oneself. For myself one is any idea one can find happiness through manual labour. The condemnation of selfishness and snobbery. For my son it would be different. I am the father holding up my own ideals. For him the sources of rebellion and therefore of life, are correspondingly different.
Moral liberation, moral repression and ideas. children more educated than their parents reject their parent’s morality wholesale. It is liberating to reject it. The rejection acquires a symbolic character. Happiness appears not to be possible where repression is demanded.

297 Joseph Butler and morality. He roots morality in self interest and is therefore and thereby sound and sensible.. the so called moral nihilist would reduce to primitivism, deprive us of useful modes of thought and expression. Detach it from self interest and it becomes a double edged weapon.
Morality is something that sometimes conflicts with what appear to be the immediate interests of the self. It is possible to develop it to the extreme where it operates quite contrary to the interests of the self, perhaps appealing to some desire like good opinion, rationality, some other form of pride, or the desire for an easy life.
Morality is a weapon that may be used against certain groups of people and not just those dangerous to society as such.
There is an element of illusion in it. The idea of the givenness, solidity and rationality of the doctrine. Denial of the will to power. Illusion that there are barriers, like rational barriers, to the expression of the will.

307 Christian virtue. In the name of virtue immense ugliness is perpetrated.
Insofar as vice is conceived as selfishness it is a good thing. Not being a dictator I am not responsible for everything in society, such as seeing the people have decent housing. Let people look after their own interests, I fight my own corner. To see the immorality behind everything is to see the will to power, and to appreciative it aesthetically. Emancipation from the false views that oppress.

331 Bruno berated the Oxford doctors for denying that good works are necessary to salvation, as if without such beliefs good works would never get done, hospitals schools or colleges built.
Mandeville denies this, which is one reason why he is refreshing. He denies the idea that some particular belief is essential to the survival of society, an idea which is completely inimical to spiritual freedom. It is not true that morals are necessary, but that is not to deny the possibility of real moral evil.
Sympathy creates homogeneity and overrides class boundaries. Class solidarity is neither more or less moral than its contrary.
If one does not want to oppress the poor as they were for so long oppressed in Paris, it is not because one is consciously moral.

53 Dostoyevsky’s peasants seem in need of restraint. There is this great dichotomy presented of religion or socialism, the idea that morality justice and so on all need a religious sanction, either Christian or socialist.
The fact is that these ideas are autonomous. Justice and morality are autonomous, they do not need the support of religion, whether Christian or Islamic, nor of any comprehensive ideology,. This is paganism.

68 what is morality? Morality as the pressure of that old bitch society to accept its judgements. Morality that tells me all the times that I an wrong, that I shall come to a bad end.
To an extent I am not unreasonable, I will accept society, and pursue my ambition according to just rules.
The idea that I should do more than this, the negative pressure of morality is what I associate with the force the Jews brought into the world with their hatred of Greece.

114 Slave morality. Morality directed against oneself. Expression of the power of some dominant group.
A group may be dominant only because it is rising. We can have literature for minorities. For immigrants and homosexuals. Minority groups who feel there is power to be taken and who find their situation to be interesting. In the fifties there was a literature of the northern working class, of whom perhaps Sillitoe was perhaps the best representative.
Follow the pressure of morality. Some might even what to call it conscience. There are those who want to present it as the logic of history.

142 Christian morality may well survive Christian belief, foolish as it may appear to some. It is a form of life. As polytheists we may deify it. Each practice may have its own autonomous sphere. Once we are no longer monotheists we no longer have to accept any total package. There are many different forms of atheism.

158 Dostoyevsky, moralism and freedom The nineteenth century. It may sound like the voice of age old wisdom and traditional commonsense. But a spirit of genuine freedom will want to break through this.
Thinking of English liberty as in the 18th century. Is, was, morality even really necessary? People are restrained by the rod and the rope.
The morality which the moralist says is the foundation of society may not be so at all.
See with what contempt Dostoyevsky views the idea that people might enjoy running around naked. Think of the classical tradition, think of the Townley collection.
A culture can exist in which a desire for freedom takes precedence over morality. In 18th century England the public hanging was the popular pastime. What did this signify? The brave criminal was admired.. Society checked him, had to do so, with a severe deterrent penalty, but people were prepared to sympathise with his free spiritedness. Likewise corporal punishment is schools. Such punishment is strongly deterrent and makes moralism unnecessary.
So called vice.. Different forms of morality. Impatient of constriction and constraint.. Not out of depravity (as understood within the moral code) but out of desire for freedom.
The murderer even may be admired and respected, but not imitated.
Public hangings were ceremonies confirming English liberty.

338& talking to MA about south Africa. Kind of faith.
One could say that it is decadent slave morality. this supposed moral imperative it is a decadent thing in the way that it is put. If there is a sincere belief that such moral ideas are more important than survival that is plainly decadent, a very dangerous idea, also very foolish.

346 George MacDonald’s Lilith. Show a man his reality as in a mirror. But why should he accept it? There is a great problem of moral philosophy Does one not have a right to stay exactly as one is?

AE 266 Lars Ullerstam’s book, Sexual Minorities, a Swedish view. One the whole it is very sound, the position is very Thelemitic. Better than the Thelemitic in fact, in its crudest form. Reservations one has about Swedish sexual liberation. This book is immune from such criticism. Swedish liberation as itself a form of authoritarianism.
Baudelaire la volupte etc.
Blake Energy is eternal delight.
Both expressing something about the autonomy of he sex urge. The Satanism of it if you like, its resistance to attempts to chain it and sanitise it, make it respectable, Christian or socialist.
De Sade at the French Revolution made the same point. The sex instinct has its own autonomous nature. It should be worshipped. It is outside morality and not to be made moral. Insistence on the evil of sex may seem childish, but where there is contamination by morality it may be an essential hygienic measure.

AA 44& Shakespeare, Aeschylus, both write about instinct brought into naked conflict with real situation, All is given. Thus there are no ‘bad’ men only men who arouse feelings of distaste in others. Shylock is such a bad man. No Victorian moral endings. The Orestian trilogy is about justice, but it is true to life. Milton’s Satan is true to life. The moralisation of the world is an attempt to make it ‘safe’, a simplistic set of lies to cramp and destroy powerful instincts, repentant sinners, the effort to identify ‘sin’ with weakness and sickness, the artistic portrayal rather of the fear of instinct than the experience of it.

KK 100 see evil Vale of Har

110 Much of what I have been saying about evil is not incompatible with some forms of what passes for orthodox Christianity. Morality is for those who need it, the morality of the man of culture will be different from that of the peasant. His needs, his requirements, are different, he needs the power of exploration. So morality for him means supporting the social order, insofar as he wants to sort it. Morality as practiced by the masses he is all in favour of , this is morality an he supports it, but it does no apply to him. For him the God of the masses is a demiurge, and Jesus a kind of Gnostic liberator showing the escape above all the restriction of explicit Christian concepts. He supports the established religion only as the necessary ground and sustenance out of which his own religion, the real religion, can go. Others may turn against the religion, because it is thoroughly contaminated, because it does harm to more people that se through it to something higher. Jesus, to us, is the popular Jesus. Satan is a more affecting mythological figure.
What is evil to the masses is not so to the enlightened. He needs what they call evil, but see why is necessary that the call it such
Immanent Christianity, concepts that are about life rather than about themselves.

160& The permissive society, its drawbacks. What is really odious is encapsulated in the phrase ‘the new morality’. Where the old morality was current one perhaps rather despised those who stuck rigidly to it. Did this mean we wanted to convert the world? Au contraire as among Hindus perhaps we need to be able to despise a majority of mankind before we can feel comfortable and breathe easily.
Machiavelli’s is not the only intellectually reasonable viewpoint. All morality carries within itself the possibility of its own antinomianism. Machiavelli however makes it possible to talk about certain relations with refreshing ease and clarity.
The rebellion against the norm used to take the form of somewhat aristocratic values, bringing a certain freedom. Etc etc

286 ‘in what then does the superiority of culture over want of culture consist- of the renaissance for instance over the middle ages? In this alone: the greater quantity of acknowledged Immorality’ (Nietzsche, Will to Power P II p203)

but what is this immorality? Is Nietzsche preaching a straightforward doctrine of salvation through sin? What does immorality amount to? Is it essentially a mater of taboo breaking? How many taboos do I need to break? Do I need to become a parricide and a matricide, to slaughter my children my women and my pets?
I would say that the non plus ultra of corruption was reached at the time of the Russian revolution and its aftermath, Pope Alexander IV seems a very kindly man in comparison. But presumably that was unacknowledged immorality. I’m quite sure the police thug is quite happy to acknowledge his own immorality to the man he beats up.
One can see there a simple justification for some Nazi behaviour.

Hobbes- morality grows out of immorality. It is originally a form of it.
It is too simple to speak just of immorality. Immorality in the Christian sense probably An open self interestedness…
Perhaps what we admire most is the superb skill that is able to use morality for its own ends, that his not bound by taboos.
Hobbes is immoral, Hitler, Crowley, Alexander IV, Machiavelli. They all operate outside the taboo systems which have been developed to keep men in order. We admire them, not so much for their immorality as for their freedom from restraints.
Morality can be an expression of self interest, as with the lawgiver (vide Sancho Panza). A lot of the time it is restriction and it is refreshing to see people who can move outside it. It is also refreshing to se people like Solzhenitsyn or Vladimir Bukovsky who express their will through taking a firm moral stand. Or Hamlet, or Orestes, setting up an ideal of justice which resolves their innermost desires. Caligula, Nero. Caligula has been interpreted as an anarchist who aimed to destroy the empire from the top. Perhaps he found the Augustan hypocrisy intolerable. For power it is a brutal thing. Augustus according to Gibbon was cowardly hypocritical and devious. The paternalistic concentration of power and virtue that he promoted, the stern, just father figure has a similar repellent quality to the image of Lenin. Caligula cold not abide that kind of virtue, he was not gong to adopt that image.

Hitler, Alexander VI, Solzhenitsyn, can each be thought of as overcoming resistance, desire agraidng official moral codes to establish new principles of behaviour.
One admires those who do not play be the official rules, Thus certain great criminals, Christie, Jack the Ripper, Peter Kurten, Hitler, Stalin. But I have no admiration for King Claudius, Yezhov, Vishinsky. I do not admire the sycophants and crawlers who fawn around tyrants. It is not a mere extremity of evil that I have ever admired on a principle of sheer Satanism or justification by sin,
Perhaps it might appear that one hates Christianity so much that one rejoices in whatever is anti- Christian, that as to the Christian everything is justified insofar as it chimes with the will of God, so the Satanist reverses that valuation. But that is not the way it is. It is nothing whatever to do with Christianity. Satanism of anything of the sort.
It has much to do with being a free spirit. But then it is not so much a matter of being, rather it is a form of doing, or activity.

AV 61 Nature of morality. A moral principle expresses the desires of some people and aims to restrain those of others.
The idea ‘you ought not to do..’ something or other is presented as a description of the way things are. There often is a descriptive element. It is that of a particular society, and the principles it lays down. Things can get to the state where much of the moral order of society is revolting. Democracy can get us to the state where the prevailing moral pressure is felt as a constant ugliness, a mere obstruction to desire. It should be the function of art to give a strong enough alternative perspective. Our art (cf Damian Hirst) fails to do that.

65 Religion and how it slowly turns into majority. Religion in its moral aspect and its mystical aspect, but how its mystical aspect too becomes involved with morality as it wants to steal a bit of the world that otherwise belongs to science.
How might one have a moral foreign policy, what would it be? What would it be for the world’s great power to be really moral?
And the other question, what is the aim or point of political opinion? In a democracy are you trying to change everyone else’s opinions? Restore opinion to a standard of rightness?
I feel the same sense of corruption and need for redemption

123 Stalin and the purges. The blood lust that influenced not only Stalin but several of his subordinates. This like irrational reason. Blood lust, killing mania. As in the holocaust.

I spoke of the immorality in holocaust and terror. Also think of the strange morality of pc behaviour.

168 Kant and official morality from which one is condemned as immoral and sick. A form of decadence from which transvaluation is to take place. Logic which produces an oppressive form of state morality.
Way out through the unspeakable immorality of the Ubermensch. Different way in which immoralism and the salvation it promises has been conceived.
Cafavy Spengler and Sorel.
Alternative of developing a noble sensibility.
Against the inevitability of a moralising egalitarian movement, decadence in the suggestion that decadence is rooted in intellectual mistakes.

In Schnitzler, (The Road to the Open) Dr. Stauber’s son Berthold expressing a ruthless form of social Darwinism. A Jew doing so.
A hundred years ago that Social Darwinism was an option. That was was in a way good.
The mind was freer.

170 Morality. Someone wants something. A group mind wanting the same thing sets up a standard of normality. Those who want something different, who deviate, are loaded with all reproach and all guilt. The heart of the reproach is the suffering they are caused. It is not permissible for them to want what they want. It all depends, it is said, upon a question of attitude, over which they have complete freedom of choice.

SS 38 A recent book has been published discussing ethical problems including one about Gaugin. his irresponsibility leaving his previous life to pursue an artistic ambition, would it have been morally more reprehensible if he had failed as an artist? It is a fatuous question that should only agitate idiots. It does make a point, however,
The life you are expected to lead is a highly repressive one, in my experience. The voice of official morality would tell me to suppress in myself that which I feel to be most important.
That itself might be interpreted as unrealistic ambition. Tackling realistic objectives, self images. To make myself feel better by making gradual progress.
‘realistic objectives’ seeing self pitted against the world in a realistic way. No need as such to reduce ambitions. It does involve not subjecting myself to judgements.
The confusion of motives to some extent does involve laying myself open to judgements.

87 One may only love when one knows. Renaissance Italy or ancient Greece, both are almost uniquely brilliant , but politically unstable. The value of puritanism in it promotion of the will, in the conviction of rightness it can bestow, the moral strength to generalise one’s own will. Soil from which Nietzsche and Crowley sprang.

104 how I despise the whole modern Ibsenite ethos of ‘duty to oneself’. Promoting oneself in one’s ignorance and darkness, liberation through dramatic action. This is bad individualism, alien alike to the classical ideal of civic service and the Taoist ideal of detachment. It does bear relation to the Christian ideal of salvation of the soul. So many of these words are ambiguous, ‘self’ ‘individualism’ ‘egoism’.

237 the plebeianism of modern ideas must not include Adam Smith, his ideas were simply generators of power. The plebeianism of nineteenth century English ideologies. Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, Carlyle ie the shallowness of the Victorian sages, including Charles Dickens, J S Mill, George Eliot, and innumerable eccentrics belonging to traditions dating back in their essentials to the civil war. To an undeniable extent this is the shallowness of energy and optimism. Let it be noted that all aristocracies have hat some point risen from out of the plebs. The newness of society invited fresh new solutions.
Consider how Bute applied Jacobitism to the house of Hanover.
The farcical idea that society could ever be made abstractly ‘just’.
Goetheanism, in its bad aspect pharasaism, must be perpetually recurrent. The good and the just just become a different set of people that is all. Justice, even social justice, if it is to work is a fascist concept. The arbitrariness of all moral codes. To accept any situation as ‘just’ , meaning any conceivable human social situation is to adopt an arbitrarily closed mind against the cries, real or implied of the oppressed, or those who claim to be such.
Plebeian ideas, also, let it be noted, are not the same as servile ideas and it is these latter which provide the greatest danger. A shallow idea is not yet a venomous one.

37 Battle of the Greeks and Amazons, Bourgeois culture. Individualism taken to the point of abandoning responsibly for the real quality of life. Thus the USA is considered an admirable society despite its atrociously vulgarity and ugliness. Ugliness is very largely tolerated, this is one is one aspect of the repression that grips the entire population. Modern work encourages a premature self respect, one is honoured for qualities which are useful to others, rather than valuable in themselves.
One tends not to take up the attitudes that are appropriate to one’s situation. Of course the truly strong and secure can be completely antinomian, but a fully comprehensive set of moral attitudes must not presume strength. There is a form of antinomianism which is decadent in the true sense, it does not spring from strength and security but from instinctual alienation, the acceptance of a code which inevitably represses certain possibilities of self assertion,

Example. Say the prevailing code is one which tends to promote the domination of women. One really strong and secure will easily be able to overcome this and assert his own superiority, it will not matter to him what the prevailing code is, One in a weaker position may well feel oppressed by it, not just because he is not getting satisfaction, but because it seems to force a pecking order on him which he feels to be false.

124 Suppose Freud was wrong in his conception of the libido, he made it amoral, when really it is no more amoral than mathematics is non geometrical or non algebraically. Because he made the libido amoral he was led to the idea that all morality is against the interests of the self. Only direct self gratification could be truly satisfying. This insensibly leads to the attitude that the only thing that is truly admirable is uninhibited self indulgence.

130 ‘the Whig is all for innovation’ (Dr Johnson). He is naïve enough to trust in the mental powers of his contemporaries, prepared to give up tradition for the latest ideas. A truly thoughtful man will tend to be suspicious of the latest ideas, unless they have truly compelling logical reason behind them.

The attitude of hatred of authority is connected with that of hatred of violence and both derive from a kind of ultra sensitivity, close to that of Jesus himself. ‘judge not that ye be not judged’. An interesting text, which points to a link between Jesus and the Marquis de Sade. The point is an attack on the hypocrisy apparently implicit in adherence to a moral system. In making a moral judgement there seems a radical dishonesty, a false and constricted view of human nature. In condemning another one is condemning oneself. ‘ he who is without sin amongst you let him cast the first stone’.
Consider he portrait of Lord Mansfield in Kenwood house, of which two old ladies remarked that he looked a wicked man. There is the epitome of a judge, full of self importance, yet apparently a relatively humane man.
Is there another way we may come to look at judging? There is one, which does not involve any falsification of human nature but that emerges as the natural result of the interplay of human self interest. The moralisings of judges can thus be seen to have a natural part to play in the order of things. By wickedness he means that which will not be tolerated and will be punished accordingly, he is not trying to ravage and destroy a man with guilt. He assumes that he is speaking to a relatively secure human being.
But a lot of young people are very insecure and they judgement as a deeper threat than that. A writer in International Times once compared prison to ‘total screaming acid horrors’ which is under most circumstances an irresponsible exaggeration.
Guilt can be felt either internally or externally and it when it is felt internally that the real harm is done.
Consider ‘Of the pale criminal’ (in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra). External guilt is merely a product of social relations. Internal guilt- a judgement seems to force particular view of ourselves on ourselves.
‘Say fool – but not wicked’. The distinction that is meant to be expressed here is a useful one but it is impossible to express it so concisely. Wickedness is a useful concept, it has a place in our language, but that depends on the interpretation that is given. ’wickedness’ signifies society’s disapproval, without necessarily any lack of respect for the right of the individual to his own will. But a moral judgement may be felt as an effort to make the judged experience himself as the judger sees him, to make him mistrust his own instincts and feeling and live according to standards which cause him pain when he attempts them

126& Reading all about Philby Maclean Burgess and Blunt.
The traitor. The temptation to admire alternating with the temptation to despise. One admired Philby, why?
Did he seem a great free spirit a kind of practical joker? Philby’s conscience. The traitor. Something there. One did not admire him as an idealist. One admired him for cocking a snook at the establishment.
Somehow when one finds that he was simply a part of a corrupt and decadent establishment.
Everyone is a child of his times. ‘treason never prospers’.
A Philby in a communist Britain would have been an arch cunt. Burgess, perhaps, has more heroic stature. One admires power, basically. there was too much of squalid impotence.
Stuff of a Shakespearian tragedy. Perhaps. But what heroism anywhere? Troilus and Cressida perhaps. I have to agree about loyalty to friends. Perhaps there is something admirable there, an aristocratic value that clashed violently with the times and even the security lf the world.
Philby, Guy Fawkes, Coriolanus Alcibiades, George Vassal, Macbeth,
Philby’s conscience. Does he realise how much he is admired in some quarters and for what reasons? Admired as a powerful aristocratic individual who defied the pressure to conform out of a heroic fastidious taste. A romantic image. One who exercised his freedom, chose to join the other side. The bravery of individual perversity, A very cool character performing his own will.
But it was not like that. What image does he keep up to himself? How can he even enjoy himself with a clear conscience? What is conscience?
It is admirable to be without conscience, I admire it. ‘Damn his conscience’ said Trevor Roper. I certainly despite Blunt’s conscience in the sense he describes.

Philby indulging his senses in Moscow, general in the KGB. Building up his image as counter propaganda against Russian dissidents. See the need for drink. Blind drunkenness becomes something like a logical necessity. It is in drunkenness that one become sufficiently nihilistic to justify anything. There one comes close to the position everything being merely a joke in bad taste. Maclean I have little interest in. Blunt largely repels, though some respects certain moral qualities like his toughness.

Philby’s moral corruption. Interesting subject there. All the motives that could justify him. The doubts he managed to keep down. How much did he kept hem down? How much of an egoist is he? Does he like himself? Is he proud of himself? Does the hatred people feel for him get through?

You does the Yorkshire Ripper feel about himself? But I prefer the ripper. Philby is identified with a regime in exile. Living under a false image. Does he live in a moral hell?

Normally questions of good and evil mean so little to me, they so rarely arise. I fully support Milton’s Satan. But Philby’s moral dilemma is most complicated, much more so than that of a simple satanic rebel, a criminal or even a fascist, even an Eichmann.
Eichmann killed a lot of people, but that is a simple crime, so did Genghis Khan so did Napoleon so did Alexander and they did not feel guilty about it.
The impulse to murder is a simple natural hunger of impulse, society restrains it, but some societies have encouraged it. One thinks, due to neo-Victorian taboos of murder, as the worst crime. But what of treason? Macbeth’s crime was not murder but treason. Perhaps real guilt is something I have little conception of because I have little inclination to incur it. I have inclination to commit the crimes of barbarians, even to torture and kill people.

What is treason? Surely Satan was a righteous rebel. Genet was fascinated by treason in his antinomian excesses. Compared with Philby Satan has fine moral qualities Brutus, Cassius and Judas in Dante’s hell. But that means nothing. Guilt is being led into doing things you do not want to do. Raskolnikov killing Elisaveta. Someone like Philby could have a justification for himself but I doubt if he has. An unrepentant swashbuckling egoist one admires.
Guilt. repentance. The murderer is tormented by the ghosts of his victims. Perhaps one should feel sorry for Philby if he really is tormented by remorse.

95 Christianity and the morality of the weak. To what extent may that be construed as a misunderstanding of yogic instructions? Blake tried to sort it all out.
Who loves his enemies hates his friends
That cannot be what Jesus intends.
But also, there is grafted onto the original shoot a hate theme, the Chandala God. How do these fit together? Has the yogi the holy man, been used as a means of moral reproach? Compare with Gandhi, by way of example.
The poor feel they are closer to the holy yogi than the rich are and the necessities of their own lives become a moral weapon to use against the rich.
Of ideas, when murder is right.
Orthodox morality links itself up to law of the land in a way that only makes sense on Hobbesian principles.
War. There is nothing wrong with professional soldiers killing each other in war, there is a kind of contract that permits them to do so. Conscript soldiers have the excuse of self defence. But they do not have to get into that position, at least not in England. ‘my countries enemies’. I put the responsibility on my leaders. But if that is right why not to kill my own personal enemies? Why should the individual accept the moral supremacy of the state? The idea is patently ridiculous and casuistical.
Other ideas, that lusts after strange women are to cease after marriage. Such ideas are all social conventions imposing a restriction on the will.
Take murder. Random murder may well be morally acceptable on the basis of there being no wrong and no right, but right and wrong are often useful ideas and in some actions one wishes to appear particularly justified and the killing of one’s enemies is one of them. To hand over all morality to the state, on Hobbesian principles makes for moral enfeeblement. What is also bad is when people can no longer contemplate their own moral premises. They act morally but have no theory to back it up, only habit. It is all right to live by ideas when they are willingly chosen, but we cannot expect that people’s choices will conform to each other.
Taken out of context the precepts of the yogi become the recipe for weakness. Here is the paradox of Christianity.

123 for morality my message is what the vulgar have called hypocrisy, if they have understood at all. For greatness of spirit my message in honour.

124 nazism made a serious mistake in abandoning morality. Morality is a useful tool. Nazism encouraged all kinds of inferior little despots to exert their domination and succeeded in destroying its own potential moral strength. Perhaps the nazi leaders were as short sighted as Lenin, misunderstanding the full range of the effects that would necessarily result from the general dissemination of their ideas.

208 casual sex. Men and women are too closely integrated culturally for one sex to escape the ideals embraced by the other.
Permissiveness, women’s attachment to convention.

248& mediaeval morality play Everyman. ‘good deeds’ The concept of villainy developed as by contrast. But then this villainy came to acquire a great interest in itself. Everyman was a mediaeval morality play. Clarissa was an eighteenth century morality novel, regarded by Dr Johnson as of great profundity and interest. The mediaeval plays led to the English renaissance tradition, with its moral stories ands eventually to the antinomianism of some of the best of Marlowe and Shakespeare. Clarissa led onto De Sade and Byron and the reversal of the moral judgement.

How much is ‘morality’ specifically to do with Christianity? The Song of Roland is, I suspect an essentially amoral poem. What about the modern ‘moral’ thriller what is the origin of its outlook? Is it the fear of the strong? Is ‘good deeds’ the encouragement of the weak? Nothing will go with thee but thy good deeds. Powerful stuff indeed and the kind of justice that appeals to the masses, the triumph of good, that which will protect them over evil. George defeating the dragon. Evil seems a kind of anarchy, it is frightening and dangerous they seek the assurance that it is going to be overthrown.

‘good’ is what looks after the weak, which is what most of the audience feels itself to be. It feels threatened, it likes to feel endangered by the forces of evil, Grendel, or the dragon, and then reassured as good triumphs, even when this triumph is a crude lie.
‘evil is uninhibited instinct. Interestingly enough we are all interested in this on a personal level, we are all in search of maximum satisfaction, so it is easily possible for your sympathy to switch to the villain. What is most interesting on the psychological and the personal level is not the triumph of virtue but the conflict of interest when confronted with obstacles. Thus all the characters become essentially villains,or they might as well be, uninhibited instinct is liberated, in the best literature, from the moralistic presentation in which it is to be freaed. Thus the switch from a slave to master morality and support for my interesting theory about Othello.
The moral theme is replaced by the far more interesting theme of the struggles of the will to power, within the context of which morality is just one more fact of which we need to take account. The danger no longer threatens because the individual is offered understanding rather than reassurance, raised to a consciousness of hi own power and real potential. Perhaps this is real morality, not the mere delusion of virtue triumphant.

Symbols of virtue, the knight errant with his code of chivalry. The court of king Arthur, a perfect society, an elite fulfilling itself in glorious deeds, bound by tradition to protect the poor.
The interesting thing in this theory is that it shows how great literature can develop out of crude popular stuff. Originally the will to power, uninhibited instinct, is portrayed as evil, as to be feared. Then it becomes interesting in itself and the perfection of the drama is when the whole conflict is played on the level of uninhibited instinct. Thus everyone is seen as striving for maximum satisfaction and the problem of how to get it breeds morality and all other institutions. .Slave morality or rather ‘morality of the weak’ has its place, especially in wartime, its drama is a kind of ritualised fear, almost a sympathetic magic to destroy enemies. Psychologically, however, it is a lie, it forbids, it expresses a spell of protection against an enemy but restricts the individual in his personal efforts, charging him with guilt.
Beowulf shows understanding of moral ambiguity. Roland might appear not to, but Ganelon is morally interesting.
Moralism is not really what we want as individuals, it springs from a deficiency of understanding, but this can soon grow as the psychology is developed into a real deep understanding. That is how great things can develop from crude popular beginnings. What happened with Byron and Swinburne had happened before with Marlowe, Webster and Shakespeare and with Aeschylus before that and maybe even with Homer.
Thus the root corruption of Christianity has been constantly overcome by an artistic appeal to the facts. See what is wrong with The Dolls House, Ibsen generally against Strindberg. Ibsen’s plays can come across as propaganda, they have a collective kind of appeal, the solutions do not flow inevitably from the psychology. They are not about instinct and the obstacles it encounters, they are moral ideas, they try to win sympathy through the characters, then put them in a situation to express a view of what reality ought to be like,

JJ 100& Rousseau is probably closer to Mencius than he is to Lao Tsu. Also he is not far off from Han Fei Tsu.
Confucius spoke of virtue. Hsun Tsu. Mencius, Han Fei Tsu all presuppose the desirability of virtue, they are all in the same tradition. Was Mao influenced directly by the legalists? I cannot tell, but legalism has certainly influenced Maoism. Also there was a Chinese totalitarian tradition.
We, on course, reject the Christian tradition that man to live in society must be repressed, the idea that the beast in man, his natural instincts is something to be feared, that to be happy one must strictly control oneself.
The question as to whether man is basically evil or good presupposes that it is desirable that he be ‘good’ here I am thinking of internally good rather than externally.
The idea that the good for the individual consists in Christian or Confucian morality. On another view it does not consist in those things at all. Both Mencius and Han fei Tsu presume that the beast in man is bad and ought to be tamed.
Another view is that it ought to be encouraged to feel a good conscience about itself. That man is naturally evil but evil is good.

Hobbes view of the state of nature is a view of man as ‘evil; which is obviously concerned not to pass any extraneous moral judgment on this. Hobbes is thus deeply anti-Christian. He is unwilling to pass judgment on the beast in man and in being such he inevitably approves if he is able to live at all. He must accept man as he is because he has no ground to condemn him.

73 Calvinist doctrine of the elect and the reprobate. I have recently been feeling that interpreted esoterically, there is a lot to be said for the doctrine.
Consider the new crop of young heroin addicts. People try to tell them that there is no need to take heroin, that they can get their satisfactions the way other people do, through work, sexual relationships etc. the objection to this is that these other people whose lives are being recommended are damned.
Similarly, those who object to the preoccupations of idlers, whether the idle rich or beatnik dropouts, saying that a bit of honest work would soon teach them what life is really about, fail to realise that the vest majority of ‘honest workers’ are damned, ie doomed to eternal hell.
No what is one to make of such propositions? I do not mean them in the most obvious literal sense, based on the common man’s metaphysics.
I mean essentially that one man’s meat is another man’s poison, but that the important thing is to recognise what is poison to me, to shun it and avoid it and not allow myself to be persuaded to swallow it.
There is an inner imperative about life some feel and some don’t, an inner imperative that has an absolutely vital urgency about it. The attempt to deny the value of this imperative by pointing to the example of other people is felt as an odious assault.

144 One can forgive Plato a lot. One must remember that he was very early and quite original, even in some of his coercive stuff.
Is the Seventh Letter genuine? An old Plato. In his moralism, a strong vein of oppressiveness. Morality always to go with philosophy.
But there are some people who cannot afford morality, certainly of that kind. He reads like the old trying to keep down the young. Having been original himself hw wants to put a halt to future originality.
But I fail to see why Socrates was necessarily antiaristocratic. His ideas offer quite a good counter to democratic tendencies, indeed to any established ideas.
In the later Plato some of the procrusteanism of the old man.

213& Morality of race and racism. Taboo breaking is a great pleasure One feels racist and dislikes being told to suppress it.
But is there a project in all this anti-racist morality? Obviously when one is involved in some serious business of one’s own this will transcend racist motives. I think I still object to government moralism and to compulsory tolerance. Minimum interference is desirable in many fields. The whole business of surveys is not something I really believe in at all.
I detest bureaucracy, the increasing extension of government into a moralising capacity is highly objectionable.
One should abstain from political and moral bias, stick to one’s own business.
Negritude, on being black, we preserve strong vestiges of the ancient classical prejudice against slave blood. A feeling that it is worse to be a negro than many other things. That it is a degrading thing to possess negro blood.
I would say that moral views should not be a bar to possessing public office.
There is more and more emphasis on allowing homosexuals equality of treatment in employment. But with this comes an eve increasing discrimination against unpopular opinions, dissidence for the new morality.
In some respects the new restrictions are more objectionable than the older conceptions of moral rectitude.
They involve, as a qualification for authority assent to a position which is to say the least controversial, Imagine a qualification that one has to assent to the established church and go through various religious motions. This is objectionable of course, but at least it is clear, and people find all sorts of ways round it, and it eventually becomes a mere formality.
There can actually exist an ultimate commitment to freedom of opinion, despite various formal taboos and restrictions.
The new morality is against discrimination of grounds of race, sex, sexual preference, age, disability etc. But what it is not against is discrimination on the ground of moral or political views. They like to make it uncomfortable for people whose views they consider objectionable. The unjustified assumption of spiritual authority has always seemed to be the essence of the Judaeo Christian god.

350 moral language, moral disapproval, language truth and logic. Is contempt for the whore merely an expression of fear? A kind of defensive reaction? For the whore would appear to devalue love. Her feelings of guilt. Is that a surrender to the feelings of society’s dislike? A yielding to the pressure to conform?
The whore can be accepted if she is humble and accepts her burden of guilt. And whosoever fells guilty or despicable is worthy of our contempt.
But the Theodora figure, what of her? Might she be a kind of superior being? What is she missing out on? Motherhood perhaps.

366 Sex and morality See how sex can be used to foster a kind of complacency. Or for purposes of medical totalitarianism.

372 TV series Doctor’s Dilemma which discusses ethical problems. One about whether to keep a probably severely handicapped baby alive on a breathing machine. Various people on tine show, a doctor, the host, a Catholic priest, a professional busybody and a philosopher. The philosopher was not allowed to make his point, his remarks were simply contradicted and the discussion floundered about.
Gerda asked my opinion.
I believe that infanticide is permissible, that there is no case of keeping a severely handicapped baby alive.
Why are there laws against murder? Because we are afraid of being killed and also of our children being killed. What rights should a new born baby have beyond those of animals? We may give them rights, but I can see little point in extending them to the severely handicapped. To do so from my irreligious point of view merely superstitious.

AW 5 one revolution in the fifties and sixties, the nuclearisation of the family, modernisation, spread of the bourgeois lifestyle. The old stood in the way. But that was a generation that also turned on its own children. A self righteous generation, convinced of its morality.
Pointless to invoke altruistic morality against it. Morality is not primarily altruistic, a question of dong things against your inclination. That can mean living with guilt. One form of slavishness, creating ugliness.
Peculiar lack of sympathy, form of dehumanisation. Over familiarity. Unselfish morality moves little. It offers justification for acting against inclination, and therefore for failing to sort out inclination properly. It offers justification for repression.

The attack on selfishness is made on behalf of some very partial desire. Nietzsche is objected to on the basis of his selfishness. But suppose that selfishness is really the foundation of morality? Out of selfishness a genuine sympathy that will not be repressed.
See Nietzschean ethics.

29& equal opps. A nasty piece of doctrine to replace the Christian creed. Driven to this by the logic of democracy. It also claims to be the logic of morality. The sheer falseness of the claim can be exposed by the will to power idea. There is no reason why the demands of various pressure groups that have reached some position of historical strength should be seen as the universal voice of morality. There is falsity in the claim, empirically demonstrable.

55 morality is power, will, perceived interest. Many politicians, many of those who aspire to
determine morality, are fools. Like people who were communists in their youth.
Morality itself is hardly problematic, it is like social practice. Kant’s morality is illusions that contains a metaphysical pride.
One objects to what is perceived as an obstruction to desire.
Anything might be objected to in this ways. The objection may be most ‘unfair’ but can still be erected into a moral principle. Forms of racism. But all moral values have he same origin, including the idea that cruelty is wrong.

87 Morality much less of a causal influence on behaviour than people think. It is possible to exert power upon society but not against nature, against the grain, so to speak. Unnaturalness of Kant's ideas about morality

289 Russell as pundit, as literature. The achievement of a sort of power, like that of the French enlighteners.
In new York 1940 Marriage and Morals. The defence of adultery. Russell’s rationalism, his desire to improve society on the basis of reason. Monk says the book was the most personal Russell wrote.
So what was this ‘reason’? it was projecting his own life with its problems as a model. But his life was that of an aristocrat.
The idea of an objective rationalism was actually hard to sustain. Instead to become a pundit, in practice perusing his personal power.
Ideas of progress. Scientism. The idea of actually replacing religion with science. Transferring religious emotions onto scientific objects. This appalling project but perhaps sympathetic to those who have had a scientific education.
Perhaps for all it crudity many scientists are led to feel like this.
Rationalism as a fantasy of power.

332 freedom ends where morality begins. The worst attacks on freedom are made in the name of morality. Today paedophiles, tomorrow racists, once heretics.

Morality and hell being other people. Morality abuts not just freedom, but clear straightforward enjoyment. Being told one’s pleasures ought to take some clear form.

AP 196 From the moralistic point of view the Nietzschean is someone to be feared. When the Nietzschean says he has no concern for morality it is not understood what he is rejecting. These different perspectives. Different perspectives upon desire. What is actually desired is probably not much different. Desire is just classified differently. The moralist thinks in terms of desire as a crude antisocial instinct which has to be restrained by morality. The Nietzschean does not see his desire like that. He may desire all kinds of antisocial things.
Rauschning and his idea of Christianity as solution for Germany. Christian Democrats.
In attacking morality he is thought to be attacking one side of this symbiosis. This symbiosis that creates human will. There is a similarity between being free of morality and willing all sorts of things. But normally one will not.
So the idea that Nietzscheanism is so much to be feared is all related to clinging to a picture, a picture he wants to encourage us to discard.
A picture that determines the whole way in which human willing is conceived.
To be free of morality, what is that? Does one need images of it so inspire? Images of untrammelled desire which break out of established patterns.
But we do not have to be so constituted as to desire radically diffidently from normal that is not the thesis. The issue is not so much that everyone is massively repressed and should unrepress themselves.
We may read of Vikings and admire. But our own paths do not lie as neurotic revolutionaries. Our own lives are different, our own circumstances are different. Within our own lives there is much to overcome and much to affirm. All to do with attitudes to what we really want.
Suppose we desire to murder children. So do so and face the consequences.
If it is undesirable to be like that, it is not what we desire.
In saying Nietzscheanism is to be feared, from the viewpoint of clinging to the picture there may be a point to be made. But it should be made on the basis of understanding. Realising that one is clinging to a picture and why one wants to.

281 the ethical sceptic. Seen as trying to confuse people in their normal practice by specious logical arguments. This moral life, this moralistic way of being, is not natural or universal.. the overvaluation of the ordinary person. Let us bring motive into it. Suppose one has a motive for opposing this morality. As with freewill and other such popular dogmas.

74 New theory of morality. Get it all out of your system. Moral judgements are often healthy responses to emotional tensions.

NN 51 Gissing was a pessimist. He read Schopenhauer with approval. But then so did Nietzsche and he surmounted it. Schopenhauer’s great handicap and Gissing’s too, an excess of moral scruple. That I do not have.

57 Gissing The Nether World. He was apparently inspired by Schopenhauer.. Virtue does not redeem such a world. Moreover do virtuous characters like Sidney Kirkwood exist? These days there are a few prigs around, but he is not one of them. Does not everyone possess a base and sensual nature? Are not the only people who manage to resist that the prigs? I find it hard to believe in him as a character. A character who is an embodiment of virtue cannot be true to life. Everyone, for example, is sexual, and sex is a selfish animal drive. Also everyone has moods of destructive misanthropy, except perhaps the prig who does not know himself. Everyone, therefore is either in part consciously evil, a prig, or troubled with guilt feelings. Kirkwood as a Schopenhauerian character, salvation through altruism. Whoever really does do this, or even attempt it? There are some girls, it is true, who are strongly possessed by the emotion of sympathy, but even they have selfish natures which are stronger than that one simple motive. Zola’s peasants are more psychologically realistic though La Terre is not so significant a novel. Zola writes very superior soap opera. Gissing writes of moral evils which are of universal concern. He shows us the world through demoralised eyes. This is not a distorted picture of the world but it is part of the world and of great practical interest. There is real, serious pessimism, Schopenhauerian philosophy in true literary form. This indeed is what we have to rise above if we are to become Nietzscheans.

72 Blunt says he did not betray his conscience. Could I ever conceivably talk about my conscience? ‘damn his conscience’ says Andrew Boyles. But how can we damn people’s consciences unless we are Hobbesians?
But then do I have a conscience? I have moral though not physical courage. Did Goering follow his conscience at Nuremburg? It would not be conceivable for me to betray my conscience. Do I do what I think right? Invariably. If I betray one of my principles it is only because I have decided to drop it. Blunt admits he was mistaken and regrets having been so, what more can one ask? That he hangs his head in shame and hates himself because he once believed something right and did his best to further it? People criticism putting conscience before country, but does not everyone do so? Surely to stifle your conscience is impossible, all you can to is to agree to recognise some external principle like patriotism But what tells you to do that except conscience? And as for betraying one’s country rather than one's friend, (Forster) surely there must be factors which override national loyalty? Everyone who is not a prig knows this, that some personal loyalties can and should override national ones. But Forster said ‘I hope I should have the courage to…’ this is distasteful because it suggest a new moral principle where the point about friendship is that is it s ‘conspiracy against good manners and morals’.
‘Treason never prospers’,,, What is the horror of treason but some primitive gut reaction? Imagine some Christian mole in a heathen court in the dark ages, would he not be heaped with posthumous praises?

101 egoism versus egotism. I am in favour of greater unity, of the subordination of mind to mind. I support egoism in that I am opposed to unselfishness
I do not agree with the maxim ‘do what you like so long as you don’t hurt anyone’. Sometimes I want to hurt people. Also the maxim is shallow. to assume that it is sufficient to ‘do what you like’ to follow your inclinations. It is a parasites’ and prostitutes’ philosophy. a parasite is one who feels like a parasite ‘What you like’ has to have a source.

135 the merits of post Christian morality, ie ridding the people of guilt feelings, preaching self respect. Superficially a good idea. So called proper pride turning into insolent conceit. In an earlier era when moral prejudices were different. then one could flout the moral code without feeling all the time justified, right. Am I saying that a repressive morality is a good thing? Or that it is good that people should feel guilty? What is bad today is that the masses as individuals have become so proud. They are sure they are right. Previously a whore, for example, had to face moral censure, a free lifestyle was something rare and precious. The law against cannabis may not have seemed so iniquitous because the law as a whole was obviously repressive. Suicide, buggery and obscene language in print were all illegal, to live a free lifestyle one had to feel strongly apart from the democratic mass who made the law. There were lots of shabby fringe characters all over the place.
Society has undergone rapid change so that the free spirit can feel himself participating in democracy. In some ways this is bad. Increasing mildness means less alienation. there is less and less room for self doubt. Where there is no self doubt there is no room for the influence of one mind upon another. Social atomism again.

Modern culture follow inclination. Rousseau again. Our whole culture has become concerned with freedom of inclination, and this means pride of inclination. All mystery is taken out of life. All that maters is to pursue your inclinations, I believe that there are other things that matter profoundly. And this very doctrine of freedom of inclination rules them out, cuts them off.

149 what is the foundation of morality? Self interest. What is the golden rule? ‘do what you like, at least within the law irrespective of what harm you do to anyone else’.

25 the standards of most people are unspeakable, they are suffocating. A reason to hate communism. To have to submit my mind to the standards of most people would involve intolerable suffering. To submit the body without submitting the mind would also involve great suffering. To hell with morality. Within the framework of just law one should feel free to do exactly as one pleases. Murder by witchcraft is no murder, so it is lawful killing.

If the standards of most people could actually be applied in both the mental and the physical spheres, I could not breathe for a second, brain and body would be crushed under an intolerable pressure, mangled up and strewn about the city.

I feel in London, like an enemy alien. I am not one with those around me, if they could they would crush and destroy me. This is I were Jesus, the impotent Jew. But I am not impotent and I have a chance of exerting a seductive attraction,. For even the people know that sex is the Devil and the Devil that confounds all their standards can be attractive to them. Such attractions are an intrinsic part of life, and even their values must make allowance for it.

27 support of repressive laws, opposition to the leisured class.

28 Kantianism of Victorian middle class. Antinietzscheanism of Britain today. Fear of revolution, fear of fascism. The protest against morality in the name of personal freedom,
but spiritual freedom is a value they find dangerous. Society not being equal, it is held that those with power, justified as the cultured section of society, are to be constrained in their behaviour by a sense of duty to the lower classes.
Ideals of self realisation it is felt results in something like the atheistic amoral French revolution or alternatively to fascist oppression. Expose nakedly the power relationships in society (as if you tried to live aristocratically) and there is much danger. As fascist ideas are the most vigorously suppressed today, because feared, so were certain free spirited ideas to the Victorians. Particularly was openness about sex.
Bourgeois amorality. Moral restrain on themselves, moral repression on those below them.

64 Bergson states that self interest is but one among a number of alternative principles from which it is possible to deduce morality. Surely the most economical say I.

146 Morality, children. Pinocchio. Some kind of moral education is undoubtedly necessary, not so much in ‘society’s’ interest but in the child’s own interest. As a young man like ranter Clarkson I blossomed into an Immoralist, is there some connection? The way morality was taught to me. I rebelled against it as an instrument of restraint and hypocrisy. I do not support hypocrisy in education. I believe it is undesirable. the religious hypocrisy, of example, of the modern English, is astounding. The place of Christianity in British public life is almost wholly hypocrisy. A Tory politician will tend to be a hypocrite, pretending to believe things he really doesn’t.

OO 126 Moralism can bring about changes, that is hardly to be denied. Changes which can result on the superscession of the need for morality. A defence of guilt is that it is a means of changing institutions and prejudices.

156 difference between giving the cane and receiving it. If moralism helps to keep the people down it too can be experienced as enjoyable.

160 demoralisation, that great enemy, springs directly from moralism, ie an intolerant effort to make you conform to someone else’s moral standard, and the current form of moralism is the work ethic. The voice that tells you your work is worthless is that of the prevailing ideology, which is strongly hostile to any attempt to change it, and insists that there is no problem. It is the choice of popular morality and it sets pressure on whoever tries to resist it.

188 morality in fact is a natural reaction serving self interest. I find it easy to sympathise with the worst kind of murderers. Is that a defect of sympathy? One may even concede that they should be hanged. There is a natural instinct for revenge. Morality, an expression of the instinct to degrade. We are entitled to degrade those who offend us personally. ‘Must you not therefore be consistent’? No. the moral judgement of the free spirit, which is what I presume we want to be, should all be ad hoc.

Yet let not any murderer who happens to read these words feel that even I am now moralising against him. All I say is that this state of alienation is probably too great for even most enlightened people to want to share, even in the sympathetic imagination. He has stirred up hatred against him such as most people cold hardly bear to imagine.

107 the book Why Nazi published in 1933 before the night of the long knives. Seen before the obscuring lens of wartime propaganda, the nazi state looks as anti-Nietzschean as anything. The elimination of all personal freedom, the collective enthusiasm. These are obviously very alarming features to develop in such a society in the heart of Europe.
War propaganda obscured everything by identifying Nazism with evil and the Devil, thus making it attractive
Actually it had strong Christian elements, notably the work ethic which is specifically German rather than generally protestant.
If the German spirit needed to express itself in this way, that was a reason for subordinating it as by war. Inner necessity no excuse.
The persecution of Jews and socialists would arouse the indignation of Jews and socialists and some humane feeling against that. But the worst thing is not the immorality, which is attractive, but the morality.
Idea that German turned against the enlightenment.
To say Nietzsche opposed German nationalism and anti-semitism doesn’t go to the heart of things. We should see how rational it was for him to oppose them.

108 Idea of how freedom might bring moral renewal. With sufficient energy it could. Ideas of immorality and decadence. Immorality as Roman Catholicism. Immorality as enthusiasm. Both in a sense transvaluations. Idea of immorality as selfishness is false and shallow. Womanish. Corruption of opinion, corruption of the press,

156 Article in The Observer by Paul Theroux about cultural difference and tolerance. He is right but the situation is impossible. Imperialism is inevitable and not to be avoided. We have to assert and believe in our moral superiority, in effect we have to be racists. The false idea of moral facts is brought up. In place of the irresistible power that reconciles you to what is happening we are offered ‘moral facts’ that do not exist.

PP 15 On saintliness. Modern morality as exclusively concerned with duty to one’s neighbour. Duty to God has become a thing incomprehensible to it, even an egotistic and wicked thing. ‘Duty to self’ seems to mean little more than a right to self indulgence. Bring the concept ‘God’ into it and I become, in quite traditional terms, a righteous man.

39 Duty to neighbour, duty to God, duty to self. Duty to self is nonsense, it is mere selfishness. Duty to neighbour should not stand in the way of duty to God. Of course I am an atheist, or rather I describe myself as a an atheist. But we must escape from the idea that that all possible morality is contained in the idea of ‘duty to neighbour’ and that the only alternative is some self indulgent atomistic quest for fulfilment. The idea of atomistic hedonism is that pleasure is the good in life and that it is easy enough to forgo one pleasure for the sake of another. The idea behind the conception of duty to God is that you have no choice. That if you disobey the consequences will be disastrous. You have no choice because the consequences of ignoring your destiny or your inner voice are not merely painful but have the ultimate logical effect of making you feel completely in the wrong.

116 Moralists and moralisers. Swedish socialist morality. Moralisers who look at our ways of life and stand guard over them, watching. Systems for morality as ideals, or outer boundaries. Were hippies free spirits? There were moralisers at work among them, trying to persuade them that their morality, to which they may or may not measure up, is social atomism.
Free of power urges. Moralistic guardians. You can live your whole life within moralistic boundaries but the great thing is to break free.

206 Now think of moral dilemmas, such moral dilemmas as are supposed to be part of manhood. The secret is not to feel there are moral dilemmas at all. There are no moral dilemmas, only the war.
The moral dilemma is the experience most prized by people like Fichte and Kant who see the moral life as the inmost meaning of life.
Moral choice. The very idea appears to admit the possibility of compromise. The pleasure, the kick out of feeling moral, feeling responsible. Women leaving their husbands. Moral choice. There is no need for moral choice.
People say morals are necessary when they mean only that the police are necessary.
The concept of moral choice puffs people up with self importance.
The idea that the meaning of life is moral, such an anti-Nietzschean notion. And it makes life so difficult, such a struggle. The struggle to ‘be moral’ as if that carries some weight with eternity.

Aeschylus says that man must suffer to be wise. The concept of moral choice bypasses this healthful, healing, suffering.
Suffer but do not moralise. To make a moral decision is like saying you do not know what ought to be done. Moral decision introduces chance. Introducing conflict into the heart of what you know. Placing our own principles into constant doubt. Do not trust a moral man.
German Baader-Meinhof terrorists moralise like other Teutons.
Moralising often a way of avoiding suffering. Often there is inevitable suffering in a course of action. Motives conflict, motives pulling you in two directions. To moralise is to introduce a third motive aimed at killing one of the primary motives and therefore avoiding the suffering their clash would cause to the subject. Suffering, or certainly conflict and difficulty.

The modern German attitude toward their nazi past is mistaken. Moralism largely got them there, to pretend that more moralism could have avoided it is naïve or dishonest thinking.
The habit of making moral choices, of suppressing motives. Is there really any difference what motive we suppress, be it pity or wrath?
Of course there is some suffering involved in suppressing one of the motives. To endure this suffering is flattering. A test of strength. and it is indeed a plausible philosophy of life.
The moralistic view of life is one that has its reason, its supporting arguments. But these are bad reasons.

20 Concepts of moral relativity, as distinct from relativism, as an illumination of Nietzsche.
There are moral absolutes, but they cut right across all ideologies. Even subtler than that. There is no coherence of the personality. Nietzsche’s concept of ascending and descending life. Is it true to say that many forms may be adopted in the process?

38 Advertising is banal, it is base because it expresses the will to other people, alien wills.
The visual quality of the mundane world. Glossy magazines, cornflake packets. Advertising a perversion of art. Yet there are levels of taste, and it can be done well, and real art can shine through.
Advertising is one of those things from which one desires to escape. Advertising, orthodox religion, propaganda.
Vice is not experience, it is attitude to experience. Antivice campaigners do not generally realise how much freedom they are attacking.
The pimp in Klute. The hatred and contempt for the pimp and the junkie. A cold revulsion for a certain type of person, magnified nationwide leading to oppression and massacre. The idea of discipline, checking vice. Think how its proponents see it, Stopping bad habits. But what do they offer in their place as models? Themselves? Do they realise just how repulsive they are in some people’s eyes?
It is as if antivice campaigners see themselves as controlling advertising rather than mutilating art. From their narrow perspective they misunderstand.

87 A moral code. The demand that the path to satisfaction shall take such and such a route, that such an such byways are not to be permitted.
The point is that it does promise satisfaction at the end of the road. It does not preach eternal frustration but a path to be negotiated and happiness at the end of it.

174 One hates the demand for moral restraint, for not thinking and feeling as one wants to think and feel.
Morality of the weak. Demand that the strong conform to the demands and interests of the weak. Demand that the strong surrender power to the weak.
This not as the expression of reason or anything desired. Extension of the kind of restraining demand put on children. Not something that appeals to reason.
Idea that we should do without morality, a typical philosophical argument.

235 ‘My taste is the opposite of a tolerant taste’ (Nietzsche). Idea of morality of the weak. The self complacency of the weak. Post modernism as tolerance, Yet the self confidence of the ordinary, of the weak, contains like an implicit threat, like a denial of possibility. It contains a kind of defence. Christian piety is only the most obvious expression of this.

AS 114 morality of the weak should not be able to work if the rational principle is clear enough.
Criticism of nazis. All the Germans needed to do was to leave their nazi allegiance. The reasons for dong that are not crudely morality of the weak. They are vae victis.
One cannot entirely abstract from the concrete situation,. Nazis are bad because they were defeated. That is part of the truth If I believe they are bad and say they are bad that is part of the reason.
Morality of the weak and how it can harm. The very inhibition one feels about favouring the nazis is a mark of their defeatedness.
To be realistic, the massive disapproval that surrounds them is a factor that has to be taken into account.

179 Morality of the weak is objectionable to Nietzsche not out of a motive of benevolence that he does not necessarily possess.
It may be objectionable to strength everywhere. The point is not so much to help people. The point is his formulation which related to his own desires.

183 James Fitz-James Stephen and his objections to Mill on Liberty,
basically what he demands is also freedom, in this case the freedom to coerce. This may be conceived as freedom of rulers to coerce the ruled.
Origins of morality. Morality and liberty. Ideal of liberty as springing from the presuppositions of morality,
Idea of morality of the weak. In one sense all morality is to be thought of as a combination of weakness against strength. But this is not what is meant by morality of the weak. Morality is like a set of agreed rules for social interaction. To make a rule saying coercion is acceptable because one wants to coerce is to say it is acceptable to be coerced against our wills. Like according to the will of the majority in a democracy. Stephens was dismissive about the advent of democracy. On this mill was much more realistic.
To argue coercion is ok is to agree to be coerced, unless we think we are not likely to be coerced.
Now look at the basis of all morality. Like feudalism it is an agreed restraint upon the tyrannical individual will. Morality is mutual self defence.
Those who feel they have no need of that have no need of morality. It does not even seem like morality. .

223 Domination of the weak over the strong. Expand on significance of morality of the weak. Not so much the fact of some group or class possessing power. But a particular depressing perspective in which the inferior appear to posses power over the superior.

49 Is life meaningless and what might make it so? What can give life meaning and in what circumstances may it appear meaningless? Idea of weltschmerz. Mixture of the classes. Morality of the weak that is imposed on those who are not weak,
How one is supposed to live and the value one is supposed to get from life having acquired the force of morality.
For them a troublesome and restrictive ideal, an ideal of life far removed from the reality of desire. Something that strongly conflicts with desire. Yet for the weak the ideal precisely expresses desire, desire commensurate with perceived strength.
Look at the collapse of literature, from the novel to the soap opera, to Big Brother. was this the ‘unhappiness of the Roman world’ (Hegel)?
All life affirmation means for the weak, the promise of satisfaction for some intense desire like that of revenge. Football, making people smell your own shit. See where democracy has led. Following a fight back in the sixties.
Morality appears as sort of curse. Slave revolt, the revenge of Manchester.
Women against men. This inevitable tendency of democracy.

229 Morality of the weak not necessarily the expression of a weak person. It may be a rich person, and it may express just something he does not care about much (in respect from which he is mediocre). Thus it is that the ruling race can serve to repress energy in those it rules.

310 to explain what is wrong with democracy. How it can operate as a morality of the weak. While one may give intellectual assent to a political or abstract sense of it.
As society which generates ideas and cultural forms based upon this supreme moral principle. The pressure to accept these ideas and participate in these forms. To the extent to which you yield to the pressure you are living in a way which opposes your own beliefs, your own will and strength.
It is something which negates the value of your own opinion. Accepting this negation, to accept mediocrity. Culture of the USA, see it in this sense. A massive pressure to accept mediocrity. To submerge even your own opinion as to how things might be better.
That your will should be frustrated is hardly something you can complain about. That you should be confused and depressed by ideas is something you have it in you to put right by developing and entertaining counter ideas. That is the great cultural task.

AR 11 In looking for what is wrong with our society I would identify morality of the weak. This demoralising principle that expresses itself as a single truth. There is nothing unique to our age about the prevalence of such forces. Christianity throughout history has helped to provide a vehicle for it. The solution has been the creation of a coexisting alternative space, which it that of art. The realm of art. Partly the liberation that is effected just by the establishment of the artistic perspective given rise to a sheer playfulness, the delight in pure form.
The war, Identification with the war, with hatred of the enemy.
Decadence is like something constantly present one has to resist. What has to be done is to find a way of resisting morality of the weak.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License