Page - 58 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 05/02

things began to go wrong. He treated us as colleagues though we knew that he was our master. And under his examination, difficulties seemed to fade away in our hands.37 At the centre of his web of plans, Nordenholt’s detached “cool intelligence be- hind” them is a driving force. He is both architect and overseer of the new soci- ety he is shaping. Without his dictatorship, the text suggests, there will be no ef- fective action, survival or progress. Thus, his role is to achieve a transfigurative vision in society, which culminates in his founding of a Nietzschean-type aristoc- racy at the wish-fulfilment conclusion of the novel. As a result of his legacy, the book concludes with the prospect of humanity progressing toward something analogous to the Übermensch, and the alternate possibility of human decline if Nordenholt’s legacy is not preserved. In his assumption and articulation of power, Nordenholt displays what Nietzsche identifies as a “master morality” that is above the “herd instinct” that characterises conventional morality. Accordingly, in his reshaping of economic, political and financial landscapes, his execution of this “master morality” associ- ates him with the “higher” type of man who, like “the noble type of man, regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of”.38 His intolerance of those he recognises as lazy or inadequate is essential to his ca- pacity to drive the population according to his will – to achieve a wish-fulfilment society – after the cataclysm. In his ruthless manipulation of others and his out- right rejection of democracy, Nordenholt stands in opposition to Judeo-Christian morality. This Judeo-Christian morality is attributed by Nietzsche to the general population and sustains what he calls “slave morality” and its “[q]ualities that serve to alleviate existence for suffering people […]; pity, the obliging, helpful hand, the warm heart, patience, industriousness, humility, and friendliness […]. Here we have the point of origin for that famous opposition between ‘good’ and ‘evil’.”39 According to Nietzsche, those living under “slave morality” view the powerful with dread and assume them to be evil. Conversely, according to “mas- ter morality”, it is the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to do what may conventionally be perceived as evil.40 As Abir Taha confirms, Nietzschean philoso- phy was a “revolt against the entire humanist tradition of the West: Judeo-Chris- tianity”.41 For Nietzsche, the “slave morality” creates a “herd animal” whose po- sition is perpetuated not only by religion but also by the democratic movement, which he sees as “the inheritance of the Christian movement.”42 37 Connington 1923, 95–96. 38 Nietzsche 2002, 9:260. 39 Nietzsche 2002, 9:260. 40 Nietzsche 2002, 9:260. 41 Taha 2005, 68. 42 Nietzsche 2002, 5:202. 58 | Jennifer Woodward www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 51–68