Take what you think you know about the world, how things are supposed to be, the values that you hold, the history that you love, and chuck it.
When anyone who is not a postmodernist reads the works of Nietzsche this is the message they receive. His abrasive nature and persuasion of complete otherness is enough to cause even the most intellectual moralists to scoff at the sound of his name, while never having read through his work, never understanding his mind.
“Why is this important?” “Why should we care when we know he is wrong?” I have been asked these questions many times now and have never been able to give a sufficient reply. There is just something out there, or something within me, that begs to know, to see, to understand, to follow the questioning of “why” deep into the dark forest of the unknown, to put on the skin of another—discarding the self for a time- to learn things I may never have known I never knew, and to emerge back into my own skin… and that is where the plan stops and life continues its unknown course.
With Nietzsche, more than any other philosopher, this has been a most difficult struggle. Trying to immerse myself into his philosophy has been like a child trying to dive under the water of a clear swimming pool with floaties permanently attached to his arms and a life vest around his chest.
To those still asking the question “Why even go there?” I might reply with another question,
“What are you afraid of?”
And with that, let us begin our quest into the deep nothingness of Friedrich Nietzsche.
We are lost, modern man. And in our disorientation we lash out and harm ourselves.
What is the most harmful of all these blows? Pity for the weak. We embrace it out of dread, out of fear. And this pity is most vigorously embodied in Christianity, where it is the virtue of all “virtues.” Pity—a most degenerative disease—“persuades men to nothingness” and deprives mankind of what it could be.
This is not a new phenomenon. While we can look upon the past with great tolerance, for their ignorance may have allowed them such degenerative mental disorders, we should be filled with a disciplining furry if our day in age does not change. Our people know better. Even the priest knows, though he will be deathly reluctant to convey, that there is no “God,” no “sinner,” no need for “redemption.”
The whole concept of a “moral world order” is a lie, a lie that we have all been fed, though now we see it plainly. In order to free ourselves, therefore, we must wage war against the theologians around us and within ourselves.
The “moral lie,” fostered by the church, has enabled and inbred thoughtless people, whose good consciences are tied only to their inadequate vision of reality. What is more, these moralists grant no further value to any perspective other than their own, since theirs has been made sacred beyond reproach, adorned with such ideas as “God,” “redemption,” and “eternity.”
In reality, this was all part of the priest’s crafty plan.
Theologians throughout history, and even now, have sought out power by way of manipulation. They appeal to their fellow man, calling them to faith in indefinable things and ideas. And man has followed like a donkey to its carrot. But the charade is over, and the people know—the priest preaches such drivel for no other reason than his will to power!
We can see this in the construction of the beginning of the Bible. Just after “the beginning” it is recorded that man himself turned out to be God’s greatest mistake, a rival for himself that needed to be dealt with. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge they acted scientifically, and this resulted in making them godlike. The equation is therefore science makes godlike—because when man starts acting scientific he begins to claw his way out of his own pit of ignorance and his eyes are opened to the priest’s scheming. Priests necessarily built this dilemma into their great tool for their plan for power by declaring science to be the original sin, and making its consequence something equally intangible: “separation from God.” In the fight against science, the priest invents distress, death, mortal danger, misery, and sickness, in order that his subjects are not permitted to think. However, despite the priest’s imposed obstacles, man’s knowledge continued to increases, and retaliatory additions were added to the “moral” narrative of the Bible. This “god” then invents war and scatters the people, further impeding knowledge. But still, in spite of wars, men continue to grow. This phase of priest’s literary deception culminates with God saying: “Enough! That’s it. Man has become scientific. He must be drowned.” And so it can be seen that the concepts of guilt, punishment, and the “moral world order” were all inventions of the priest to strengthen and protect his rule.
In accepting the narrative of the priest one also denies that knowledge can be attained, for when the natural consequences are not “natural” but thought of as caused by conceptual “gods,” “spirits,” or “souls” there is no foundation for logic. This is the greatest crime against humanity that can be committed. “Sin was invented to make science, culture, every elevation and nobility of man, impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.” 
In the comatose state of the religious man, he is happy to believe that he is saved from sin. To convince man of this does not require that sin is a reality, but merely that he feels sinful. Reason, knowledge, and inquiry have been discredited and replaced by a call to faith.
And what is faith? It is the absence of contact with reality. Christianity draws up imaginary causes paired with imaginary effects to feed their imaginarypsychology that is nothing but self-misunderstanding.
They imagine they have truth, but their rationale reaches no further than the back of their own hands. Their truth is based on the idea that one is blessed in accordance with their faith. However, would blessedness—or more accurately, pleasure—really be an effective proof of truth? “The greatest suspicion of a “truth” should arise when feelings of pleasure enter the discussion of the question “What is true?” The proof of “pleasure is a proof of “pleasure”—nothing else… At every step one has to wrestle for truth; one has had to surrender for it almost everything to which the heart, to which our love, our trust in life, cling otherwise. That requires greatness of soul: the service of truth is the hardest service.”  Integrity therefore requires that one be critical in thought and severe against one’s emotions. Faith makes blessed? What a most basic lie.
Only those who suffer from reality would succumb to fighting so bitterly against it. Christianity, along with its fictitious morality, is made up of the sickliest of men, whose virtues are merely symptoms of their decadence and inadequacy. They fear the pain that accompanies their existence. So in their infantile retaliation against life as such, they instinctively created a religion of love, for “love is the state in which man sees things most decidedly as they are not.” 
We, on the other hand, have the courage to be healthy, and our integrity necessarily rises up against the “holy lie” more than any other. For man is of no “ spirit” or “deity.” His place is, and always has been, on an equal plain among the animals, of which he is the most cunning. His spirituality is a sick consequence of his crafty nature— no other animal has strayed more hazardously from its instincts.
The reality in place of this pathetic lie is that the priest, along with those who bind themselves together under his priestly lies, thrives at the expense of all healthy forms of life. Like the “Wizard” in The Wizard of Ozz, who creates a marvelous machine in the image of a great wizard, and then stands behind a green curtain while it operates, deceiving the populace to believe he is capable of mystical power—the reality is here, as well as with the priest and Christianity, he is not great, they are not great. There is nothing else but what we can see and feel. There is no god. The priest knows it and is using this fallacy for his own benefit and control. “Disobedience of God” is really disobedience of the priest. The priest invented “the Law,” he invented “sin,” he invented “reconciliation.” All of this is merely submission to the priest. It is essential for him that people “sin.” For those who “repent and seek forgiveness from God” submit to the priest.
We cannot, however, give all the credit to these Christian priests—they merely observed the techniques and lies of the rabbis of Judaism that came before them, and extorted more ancient texts to suit their own increasingly vile plans for power. Paul, the father of the Christian movement, had no use for the life of his so-called “redeemer,” he needed his death. And on a cross of all things! What little cost it was for Paul to twist the movement and death of one man into the foundation and means for his own tyranny. He may not have believed the message that would grant him such power, but so long as the fools around him believed, Paul’s course for power was set and secure. And moreover, Jesus’ disciples were starved for the outlet Paul provided them, as Jesus’ unexpected crucifixion was a horrible paradox for them. They franticly tore through themselves asking, “Who was this? What was this?” in terror- because pain was at the door, and their association with their community’s greatest political criminal now put their lives on the line. But “a disciple’s love knows no accident.”  They could not accept the refutation of their freshly dead leader. Instead, out of revenge against their enemies, they severed Jesus from themselves and humanity and held him above all else. They traded in Christ’s message of equality of man for an age-old Jewish strategy: the creation of exclusivism based on other-worldly standards to circle the wagons and strengthen themselves.
So you see, “God” and the “Son of God” are both products of resentment and vengefulness.
I fail to see how a martyr’s tale would be of any validity anyway. Simply the raging obtrusiveness of his message screams “tune me out!” My dear sacrificial lambs, are you not aware that if a thing were true it would be equally accessible to all reasonable beings? “Truth is not something which one person might have and another not have.”  And your flagrance is an insult to intellectual integrity.
Incidentally, mankind loves martyrs. They presume that there must be legitimacy to a cause which inspires man to go to his death for its perseverance. But “does it change the value of a thing if someone gives his life for it?”  No! Verily, that a man who dies for a lie is even more a fool. But the persuasive nature of such seduction has yet to cease its relentless attack on truth.
Even more against the movement of this Christian-church, do they not comprehend that the message of their own “savior” is counter to their movement? Jesus was, if nothing else, the leader of a rebellion against “the good and the just,” against the hierarchy of society, against privilege, order and formula. And in this way, it was against the message of today’s theologian. They say “judge not,” but sentence to hell everything that stands in their way by letting “God” judge.
Yet according to their own Christ, the “kingdom of heaven” was not merely something that was to come after death. It was a state of the heart, a living and active transformation in oneself. In this way Jesus did not resist his offenders, in fact he provoked them, and he loved and suffered with and in them in every moment he drew breath.
It was not a “faith” that was to distinguish Jesus’ followers, but the way in which they lived their lives was to be different- not resisting, not angering, not despising, to live life a new way.
Alas, even in their error they have gotten their own philosophies wrong!
The first, and only Christian, was Jesus Christ, who fought for “equal rights” against everything privileged. So-called Christians today only seek after such aims for their own benefit, to be “chosen by God.” In their ignorance, they have no other choice but to seek social justice.
And even the cause of this is man’s instinct for self-power. What a tangled web of craftiness.
One final swing if I may: they say “God gave his son for the remission of sins, as a sacrifice,” and that “if Christ was not resurrected from the dead, then our faith is in vain.” Well! “What gruesome paganism!”  Clearly the upheld “ideals” of Christianity smother its contemptible self.
Yet the problem remains, the massed thoughtless fools refuses to accept the truth, and Christianity remains “a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground against that which has height: the evangel of the “lowly” makes low.” 
For those of you still not won over to the voice of reason, ponder this: could not what the son holds as conviction still have been lie to the father? In wishing not to see something that that one does see, or not to see something as one sees it, a father can present a mosaic of self created lies to his son, who accepts them as truth from not knowing the inner detestableness of his father’s nature. ““Faith” means not wanting to know what is true.”  And all who fail to question these arguments are responsible for their own faithful decadence.
Christianity, then, “is the hatred of the spirit, of pride, courage, freedom, liberty of the spirit; [it] is the hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy itself.”  Christianity is against anything that has turned out well. And this is its major fault, not that it lies and it’s implementers seek their own power, for all man does that, but that in the process it deceives and negates every moment of life that man actually has. Its ends and its means are made of self-violation.
Deny immorality- this alone is our real salvation!
Cast off the shackles that bellow “Thou shalt!” and simply say “I will.”
Embrace the nothingness- stop killing life.
Beyond Good and Evil
There are no absolute natural laws knowable with certainty.
You know it as well as I do.
Sure, there are tendencies—but certainty? No.
So go ahead and have your convictions, but admit it to yourselves—there is no truth.
Our consciousness is truer than any philosophy, and what philosophers call “truths” I call prejudices.
For example, lets examine modern philosophies claim: “I think, therefore I am.” This is merely a belief in grammar, for “to think is an activity for which one must suppose a subject as cause. [And a thing cannot simply be a product of itself.] Can one get out of this net? Could “I” be a synthesis which has been made by thinking itself?”  Therefore, we have apparent existence only. The “law” of cause and effect is nothing other than conception, an element of explanation in our conventional fiction. It serves the purpose of designation and mutual understanding, but not of explanation. There is no “I.”
And to this uncertainty, observe that “owing to the unconscious domination and guidance of similar grammatical functions…everything is prepared at the outset for a similar development and succession of philosophical systems [or differing world-interpretations, for]…the spell of certain grammatical functions is ultimately also the spell of physiological valuations and racial conditions.” 
And why is there such fuss over truth? Why not value untruth instead? Or ignorance even? To believe that truth can come out of humanity, the culmination of our history and self-seeking wills, is lunacy. Something so other cannot simply be derived from all the efforts of its opposite. If truth were real, it would need to be from outside, from a god of sorts, except “god,” as we have already discovered, is only myth used by the will to power. We observe that the nature of things is trickery and deception. And what guarantee is there that thinking will not do what it has always been doing? Why struggle so hard, innocently and naïvely, against being deceived? “It is nothing more than moral prejudice that truth is worth more than semblance.”  Are degrees of seemingness not enough for you? Why might the world not be a fiction? And may not the seeming need of an originator of that fiction be part of the fiction?
And so, dear philosophers, have your world-expositions, but claim them not as “world-explanations.” Only that which is self-evident, what can be seen or felt, is clear or explainable; and any claim to “overcoming the world” as Christians and Platonists so enjoy declaring, is a denial of only anything we can suggest may be.
And now a play on Proverbs if I may:
“For giving prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the young—let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance—for understanding of proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.” (Proverbs 1:4-6)
 “Many a peacock hides his tail from every eye—and calls it his pride.”
 Even men with the same principles may seek fundamentally different ends and resemble each other not.
 “It is terrible to die of thirst at sea. Is it necessary that you should so salt your truth that it will no longer—quench thirst?”
 ““Sympathy for all”—would be harshness and tyranny for thee, my good neighbour!”
 “Dreadful experiences raise the question whether he who experiences them is not something dreadful also.”
 “To be ashamed of one’s immorality is a step on the ladder at the end of which one is ashamed also of one’s morality.”
 “What? A great man? I always see merely the play-actor of his own idea.”
 “By means of music the very passions enjoy themselves.”
 “Our vanity is most difficult to wound just when our pride has been wounded.”
 “The will to overcome an emotion, is ultimately only the will of another, or of several other, emotions.”
 “To rejoice on account of praise is in many cases merely politeness of heart—and the very opposite of vanity of spirit.”
 “The belly is the reason why man does not so readily take himself for a God.”
 “Our vanity would like what we do best to pass precisely for what is most difficult to us. – Concerning the origin of many systems of morals.”
 “One who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”
 “What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.”
 “Insanity in individuals is something rare—but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
 ““Our fellow creature is not our neighbor, but our neighbor’s neighbor”:—so thinks every nation.”
 “Jesus said to his Jews: “The law was for servants;– love God as I love him, as his Son! What have we sons of God to do with morals!””
 “There is an innocence in lying which is the sign of good faith in a cause.”
 “There is a haughtiness of kindness which has the appearance of wickedness.”
 Love of our neighbor comes second to fear of our neighbor.
 “Skepticism is the most spiritual expression of a certain many-sided physiological temperament, which in ordinary language is called nervous debility and sickliness; it arises whenever races or classes which have been long separated, decisively and suddenly blend with one another.”
 “The real philosophers are commanders and law givers… they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their “knowing” is creating, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is—Will to Power.”
The goal of this work has so far been to dive into the philosophy of Nietzsche and walk around in it—because critique would only be worth airing after thorough understanding of this very other, yet recognizably parts of which are active within myself, philosophy. I am yet left with few critiques, as what critique would postmodernism accept? That which I do question is this: if, for something to be truth, it must hold weight even when it is contrary to people’s tastes and pride without excuse, if truth is not something which one person might have and another not have, even while we must constantly wrestle for truth—all as Nietzsche says—if this postmodern philosophy could not be comprehended by a society that had not gone through the Enlightenment era, would that not negate Nietzsche’s standard of truth by way of his own definition?
Still, what can be said? I do not ascribe to the full philosophy of Nietzsche, though he has many intelligent contributions to consider, for no other reason than the presuppositions I hold—that Christ was and is my love, my savior, despite the seeming equilibrium of selfishness on my part and authentic love on His, and this presupposition is for me like a single stitch that holds two universes together. While for Nietzsche, his presupposition is that Christ died—he died!—and the rest is manipulation in man’s Will to Power.