What value is a justice if it be birthed in the swamp?
Apart from much croaking and cackling one hears subversive sermonizing as nothing more than a poisonous swill that nourishes the sermonizers appetite for revenge, for above all it seeks to condemn its perceived opposite because it has found itself guilty and is seeking to assuage its own deep-rooted self-contempt. It is here that the bad conscience no longer follows ressentiment, but rather the opposite—a redoubled ressentiment that is the result of the bad conscience. It finds fault in itself and thereby seeks to crucify its neighbor, for upon finding itself guilty it looks for an other to punish for its (lack of) bad conscience. In this way the subverter begins from the negative and only thereafter arrives at the good . . .
It feels bad, and names all that flows from its bad conscience ‘good’.
It calls its hatred ‘brotherly love’.
It seeks not mountaintops, but rather the leveling of all things.
The spirit of gravity forces it downward, and downward further—it no longer chooses, but rather is ‘chosen’ by a supersensible world (or metaphysic) that e’er oppresses it—this it calls justice. Yet despisers, despisers-of-despisers, and despisers-of-self—hardly even a parallax!—are nihilists all. Therefore what has hitherto been determined antithetical in these despisers, one from the next, is in fact not antithetical, for one must not only move beyond despising an other (to no longer despising an other), but also beyond despising the despisers, as such is always-already the third: the despiser-of-self, as is the former.
And it is here that I return to my original question—what good is it to condemn the prejudiced, the xenophobe, or the fascist if one speaks as a frog, a pig, or a tarantula?
Verily, the impulse to punish is poison.
Thus have I unlearned to bite.