"Imperium Romanum vs. Imperium Christianum" (as agon), or much, much, hundred times more philosophical, than political, and as such, correct formula:
Dionysos gegen den Gekreuzigten…

["Ecce Homo" ends with Kriegserklärung, which is important for understanding the whole intent of this work, without which it is simply incomplete: the "Kriegserklärung" is, in principle, a "Todkrieg dem Hause Hohenzollern" (this, most probably, includes "NF-1888,25[14]" and so on, to the end of the Nachlass). The whole of "Ecce Homo" is a political strike aimed with the following intent:
Only by denouncing criminal madness do I always denounce the two most accursed institutions from which humanity has so far been ill, the institutions of mortal enmity against life: the dynastic institution, which fattens itself on the blood of the strongest, the well-behaved, and the glorious, and the priestly institution, which with a horrible deceit tries to destroy these same men, the strongest, the well-behaved, the glorious, from the outset. I find emperor and priest here agreed: I want to be judge here and put an end to the criminal madness of dynasts and priests for all the millennia...
and it is already obvious that all of his works, starting from "Der Fall Wagner", are strictly political, but in the meaning of new politics, i.e. true politics: die große Politik [meaning: not "realpolitik", not just politics ("Man muss der Menschheit überlegen sein durch Kraft, durch Höhe der Seele, — durch Verachtung…"), but, — philosophy].

... Man muss geübt sein, auf Bergen zu leben — das erbärmliche Zeitgeschwätz von Politik und Völker-Selbstsucht unter sich zu sehn. ... — Man muss der Menschheit überlegen sein durch Kraft, durch Höhe der Seele, — durch Verachtung…]

[And as such, the whole of Nietzsche's dynamic of thought, and even the whole of it's direction (which can be easily extrapolated without reducing it to so-called "acceleration", which is just an another "ascetic ideal", grown out of "christian-like" (speaking in Nietzsche's terms) despair), succinctly summed up...

My task, to prepare a moment of supreme self-reflection for humanity, a great noon where it looks back and forward, where it steps out from the domination of chance and priests and poses the question of why?, of what for? for the first time as a whole — this task follows necessarily from the insight that humanity is not on the right path of its own accord, that it is by no means divinely governed, but rather that, precisely under its most sacred concepts of value, the instinct of negation, of corruption, the instinct of decadence, has seductively prevailed. The question of the origin of moral values ​​is therefore a matter of the highest order for me because it determines the future of humanity. The demand that one should believe that everything is fundamentally in the best hands, that a book, the Bible, provides final reassurance about divine guidance and wisdom in the destiny of humanity, is, translated back into reality, the will to prevent the truth about the pitiable opposite of this from emerging: namely, that humanity has been in the worst hands until now, that it has been ruled by the downtrodden, the malicious and vindictive, the so-called "saints," these world-slanderers and human-violators. The decisive sign that reveals that the priest (including the hidden priests, the philosophers) has become master not only within a particular religious community, but in general, that decadent morality, the will to the end, is considered morality in itself, is the unconditional value that is universally accorded to the unegoistic and the hostility that is universally accorded to the egoistic. Anyone who disagrees with me on this point, I consider infected... But everyone disagrees with me... For a physiologist, such a contrast in values ​​leaves no room for doubt. If the smallest organ within the organism fails, however minimally, to assert its self-preservation, its power-substitution, its "egoism" with complete certainty, the whole degenerates. The physiologist demands the excision of the degenerating part; he denies any solidarity with the degenerate, he is far from compassionate toward it. But the priest desires precisely the degeneration of the whole, of humanity: that is why he preserves the degenerate — at this price he dominates it… What purpose do those false concepts, the auxiliary concepts of morality, "soul," "spirit," "free will," "God," have, if not to physiologically ruin humanity?… If one diverts the seriousness from self-preservation, from the increase of physical strength, that is, from life, if one constructs an ideal out of anaemia, from contempt for the body "the salvation of the soul," what is that other than a recipe for decadence? — The loss of gravity, the resistance to natural instincts, "selflessness," in one word — that has been called morality until now…

[It is a painful, a horrific spectacle that has unfolded before me: I have drawn back the curtain on the depravity of humanity. This word, in my mouth, is protected against at least one suspicion: that it contains a moral indictment of humanity. It is—I would like to emphasize this again—meant to be morally free, to the extent that I feel this depravity most strongly precisely where, until now, one has most consciously aspired to "virtue," to "divinity." I understand depravity, as you can already guess, in the sense of decadence: my assertion is that all the values ​​in which humanity now sums up its highest desirability are decadent values.
I call an animal, a species, an individual depraved when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers what is detrimental to it. A history of the "higher feelings," of the "ideals of humanity"—and it is possible that I must tell it—would almost also explain why humanity is so corrupt.
Life itself, I consider, is an instinct for growth, for permanence, for the accumulation of strength, for power: where the will to power is lacking, there is decline. My contention is that all of humanity's highest values ​​lack this will—that declining values, nihilistic values, reign supreme under the holiest names.*]]

The rest follows from this...

[Psychology of "eternal return", as told by the notion of "will to power". "Will to the end" (an expression of todestrieb, whilst "will to return eternally" is an obvious expression of lebenstrieb (note: Lacan is, as it seems, freely reorganizing french psyche, pushing it in the direction of todestrieb and not lebenstrieb, thus pushing the judeo-christian narrative under the cover of "psychoanalysis")) as something that is subsumed under the total of the whole instinct of life, of will to live, will to power, of immoralism ("eternalism").

Another consideration leads precisely to this. The psychological problem in the Zarathustra type is how the one who says No, does No, to an unheard-of degree, to everything to which one has previously said Yes, can nevertheless be the opposite of a naysaying spirit; how the spirit bearing the heaviest of fates, a fatal task, can nevertheless be the lightest and most otherworldly — Zarathustra is a dancer —; how the one who has the hardest, most terrible insight into reality, who has thought the "most profound [deepest] thought," nevertheless finds in it no objection to existence, not even to its eternal return — rather, a reason to be the eternal Yes to all things themselves, "the tremendous, unlimited saying of Yes and Amen"... "Into all the abysses I still carry my Yes-blessing"... But that is the concept of Dionysos once again.

In sum: the "concept of Dionysos" is "in itself" the will to truth — par excellence.]

>>1434
> Der freie Geist. [Prinz Vogelfrei. [auch: Aristophanes]]
> Der freie Geist. [Voltaire. "Prinz Vogelfrei." [auch: Aristophanes]]
(as something more suitable and real than just a title (note: Rousseau pursues a scandalous "ascetic ideal" (he's a type of a seducer), Montaigne is simply too much of a skeptic compared to Voltaire (but he is quite close to the type of a "free spirit" compared to "hysteric" Rousseau ("hysteric" in the same sense as Lacan described Socrates as "hysteric"))))
[NB: Petronius is also a good example of a character on the same level as Aristophanes, Marie-Henri Beyle is also, if not an immoralist, then at least a "free spirit" ("spirit" as "Geist" where "Geist" also means "consciousness", i.e. mind, reason, reflexive self-awareness and intellect per se).]

Ich wohne in meinem eignen Haus,
Hab Niemandem nie nichts nachgemacht
Und — lachte noch jeden Meister aus,
Der nicht sich selber ausgelacht.
— Ueber meiner Hausthür.

Law against Christianity.
[Law of thinking, reasoning in a non-christian, or anti-christian manner. For example: excluding all the telos of salvation — from science. ("Law of excluded Christianity.")]

Given on the day of salvation [i.e.: "salvation" [ironic] but not salvation [serious]], on the first day of the year one (—on September 30, 1888 of the false [again: "false" and contingent] calendar)

Death war against vice: vice is Christianity. [The worst vice of reasoning is Christianity of thought.]

First proposition. — Every kind of anti-natural thing is vicious. The most vicious kind of person is the priest: he teaches anti-natural things [errors]. One has no grounds against the priest; one has the penitentiary [because it's impossible to judge what is true or false of what priests do speak about simply by definition, thus the thing becomes the issue of heart, but this automatically makes it an aesthetics (either a lie or a conviction), and aesthetics is nothing but applied physiology (see also: aphorisms about aesthetics from GD)].

Second proposition. — Every participation in a religious service is an attack on public morality [this is explained further]. One should be harsher against Protestants than against Catholics, harsher against liberal Protestants than against orthodox ones. The criminal element in being a Christian increases in proportion as one approaches science. The criminal of criminals is therefore the philosopher.
[This one is hard to understand, but the point is: the more hidden christian beliefs are in this or that scientific method or ontology or science itself, the more defective it becomes, thus even spinozism (meaning: "cybernetics") is excluded and must be reformulated from "grounds up" without christian beliefs, especially the teleology of salvation ingrained in its core [eternal return (as FW-341, Za-III and the last aphorism of GD) is an example of non-teleological principle of thought (also see: GD, "Der Immoralist redet")]. So the "participation in religious service" is also the use of thought-processes and methods motivated by the christian values and telos. Also note of how "liberal Protestants" are extremely close to "capitalism" (free market economy).
Examples of such a line of ["pagan", "heretic"] thinking: Machiavelli and Thucydides.]

Third proposition. — The accursed place where Christianity hatched its basilisk eggs shall be razed to the ground and, as a wicked spot on earth, shall be the terror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes shall be bred there.
["Snakes" are thoughts in Za-III, this means the total exclusion of christian thinking from the thinking itself.]

Fourth proposition. — The preaching of chastity is a public incitement to the unnatural. Every contempt for sexual life, every contamination of it by the concept of "unclean," is the actual sin [error] against the holy spirit of life [of the condition of its very existence (GD, "Was ich den Alten verdanke", 4)].
[The principle of chastity is reformulated in Za-I, and as such christian (absolute) chastity is excluded from, again, the thinking itself.]

Fifth proposition. — Eating at the same table with a priest is excommunication: one thereby excommunicates oneself from righteous society. The priest is our chandala — he shall be condemned, starved, and driven into every kind of desert.
[It is an error to read ["eat"] christian books since they contain nothing but grave errors of judgment, and since a human can't "unlearn" what he read, such a reading will only turn away from life and into "being-towards-death" (which means that Heidegger has nothing common with Nietzsche, Heidegger is a very well concealed christian (catholic) thinker, and philosopher (the same applies to Kierkegaard)).]

Sixth proposition. — "Holy" history shall be called by the name it deserves: accursed history; The words "God," "Savior," "Redeemer," and "Saint" should be used as insults and badges for criminals.
[These words are excluded from the dictionary (as per Rorty) and are moved into the space of non-human thoughts, e.g. "the Nothing" or "non-Being". Using these words means making an error in judgment, automatically, aiming for an achievement of simulacra of Being/Dasein rather than truth (or Being). (If, in the process of archaeology of knowledge it is uncovered that this or that science is built on these words as foundations, then the whole science is to be dismantled and re-thought without establishing it on the grounds of a christian thought process.)]

Seventh sentence. — The rest follows from this.
["The rest" is the thought process, "Ariadne", i.e.: a "new" (old, as Greece and Rome did exist before Christianity) kind of philosophy. (This includes actions that follow from such a philosophy, otherwise, without a praxis, it wouldn't be a philosophy.]

The Antichrist [not as a "The Devil", not in a christian, but in a non-christian, sense.]

>>1440
Speaking from the disposition of eternalism [non-christian [or (but not equal to) post-christian], but not necessarily anti-christian, thought, though it does exclude the christian manner of reasoning as something implicitly or inevitably ingrained into the ground of reason (the undifferentiated signifier), as it expresses the position free from christian thought-process, only allowing it (only sometimes, not always) after the non-christian thought-ground was established]: the question if all of it is necessary only depends on the aim of a thought (of a body). If one is Christian, then this is false. If one does not pursue christian goals, and if one's life principles are in conflict with christian ones, then it's true. Regardless of truth-values of such a thought-"functioning", Christianity by definition does not seem to be aimed at staying in the being (or: in the world). Nor does the target of its striving has anything to do with reduction of suffering. The salvation is the whole goal of Christianity, and as such, it is by definition a transfer to a transcendent realm (outside of being), without any possibility to verify anything about such a transcendence (an "ascetic ideal"), and without philosophically true motivation (or: reason) to do so for people who do not need to do so, at all. Thus, if one's goals are life-oriented (being-oriented, world-oriented), then one must not necessarily be an anti-christian, but at least learn to be a non-christian (e.g. Machiavelli, Thucydides and so on (for example, not only as politics or history, but as "non-christian cybernetics")).
Because anti-christianity is de rigueur and the last resort: I myself [Nietzsche], an opponent of Christianity de rigueur, am far from taking revenge on individuals for what is the fate of millennia.
And as such, the whole of teleology of "reaching the truth" as per old "will to truth" (a will to nothing, too often, i.e. the "todestrieb" as per Freud (or Lacan)) is replaced with reaching the being (Dasein; with "lebenstrieb"), i.e.: the philosophy of der ewigen Wiederkunft (but not of "Wiederkehr", which is an interpretation of this philosophy by the moral animals of "Zarathustra").

The heaviest burden. — What if one day or night a demon were to sneak after you into your most solitary solitude and say to you: "This life, as you live it now and have lived it, you will have to live once more, countless times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every pleasure and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small and great of your life must return to you, and everything in the same order and sequence — and so too this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and so too this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is constantly turned over—and you with it, speck of dust!" — Would you not throw yourself down and grind your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would answer it: "You are a god and I have never heard anything more divine!" If that thought were to gain power over you, it would transform you as you are and perhaps crush you; The question about everything and everyone, "Do you want this again, and countless more times?" would weigh heavily on your actions! Or how would you have to be good to yourself and to life to desire nothing more than this final, eternal confirmation and seal?

Everything else — follows from this...

[ Oh Mensch! Gieb Acht!
Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?
„Ich schlief, ich schlief —,
„Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: —
„Die Welt ist tief,
„Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht.
„Tief ist ihr Weh —,
„Lust — tiefer noch als Herzeleid:
„Weh spricht: Vergeh!
„Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit —,
„— will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!“ ]

"Umwerthung aller Werthe": die Welt des Seins [das "Bild der Realität"], die nur und ausschließlich aus dem besteht, was "ist", für einen Menschen, oder ein Nicht-Mensch, oder eine "außerweltliche Perspektive", oder eine "weltliche Sicht", oder was auch immer, die nur aus "dem, was ist" besteht ("alles in der gleichen Ordnung und Reihenfolge"), von dem, was tatsächlich erlebt oder erfahren wird [oder auch nicht], — und von nichts anderem — keine vorausgesetzten Werte, keine sogenannte "wahre Realität" (die unverifizierbar wahr ist, sei es die Welt [ein Bewusstsein] eines Christen, eines Heiden, eines Buddhisten, eines Aborigines, eines Priesters, eines Philosophen, eines Tieres, eines Konstrukts, oder irgendjemandes und irgendetwas anderem, einschließlich des Sprechers), die in das undifferenzierte Zeichen des Urteils oder der Vernunft eingeprägt und verborgen sind [der "Grund"] — was ist, wie es ist im reinsten Sinne — das Sein selbst — aber das allein ist die Definition der Realität selbst, — es ist — die Wahrheit — und das Konzept? — des "Dionysos".....
— Die ewige Wiederkunft. —

>>1442
"Dionysos gegen den Gekreuzigten": as thinking, feeling, sensing, doing, intentions and choices — oriented by life, by living [Dionysos; the "lebenstrieb"] — as opposed to — being oriented [towards death, i.e. towards heaven, "happiness", "bliss" [reading psychosexually as per Freud: towards orgasm, towards highest point of pleasure-principle, which is also easily replicated by narcotics or by extreme types of pleasure (De Sade, libertines, etc)]] by death, by dying [Crucified; the "todestrieb"].
In itself: heaven is only accessible after dying. Hence, if it is a part of the world and the being, i.e. the part of what is the true being, in itself, then it is only more of a seduction, since it's much more pleasant than life in the other parts of being themselves. Hence the denial of life in the reality that is not heaven. Hence the denial of life.
Thus, once again, the — ultimate — juxtaposition: Dionysos versus the Crucified: either, as a whole of all of the humanity, live to live ["die ewige Wiederkunft"; JGB-56], or live — to only — die...

And, as it already has been said, everything else — follows — from — this...

[..... — Isn't the ice of my peaks still glowing?
Silver, light, a fish
my boat now swims outward...
[... verschenke dich selber erst, oh Zarathustra!
— Ich bin deine Wahrheit...]]

[— — —]

— Of seeing world as it is. [Ueber Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne.] —

"Error" = Nothingness.
"Qualia" = Appearance.
"Truth" = Being/Dasein. [Every man, animal, or a construct, or anything "in itself", — is a "solitary sailor" (in itself; speaking metaphorically). Meaning the "herd instinct" is also a recipe for being swayed into error, into mistaken opinion. (Senses, as they are thoughts, too, and vice versa, are the first and foremost source of "what is", i.e. of our own being. From which follows that a "construct" that is called "society" is a sum of different parts of Being, in "themselves".)] (NB: conviction is the worst enemy of a truth, or the truth. Convictions can be true but nevertheless leading into nothing, i.e. a mistaken truth-sentences regarding to so-called "context", or to the orientation in the "sea", in the "ocean", i.e. in the Being. Also... considering the fact that Being includes Nothing in it's "Self" (or self), it is easy to surmise that the "non-Being" is Nothing, and it is entirely logical that the non-Being is also a part of the Being (literally belonging to Being as a negation of Being and non-extractable from the linguistic structure of the definition [of "non-Being"] itself), as far as it takes all that is, including nothingness in it's "self"...)
"Power" = adaptability, changeability ("Proteus-Natur", e.g. Borgia, "tropische Mensch"), becoming, "non-monotonotheism" (as "monotonotheism" pertains to philosophy being a slave of words and symbols, while thoughts and feelings have exactly that "protean" nature all-too-ready to be put in use, immediately). ["Adaptable" as not only reactive, or passive, but as an actively "reactive", e.g. "proactive", which means the act, the deed, always comes first, even in a so-called "reaction", the latter, again, being linguistically un-extractable "in itself" without it's "counterpart" (action, or an act). All of this — with regards and oriented as per the Being. Changeability, in this sense, without the loss of ability ("virtu", "moraline-free", i.e. power) to act, is what defines the human "in itself", i.e. the homo natura. (An example: a buddhist, an arhat, always changes and goes with the so-called flow of "what is" (tathāgata), but this changing which is so-called "non-doing", "wu-wei", is in itself impossible without an act, the "non-doing" is already a doing in "itself" (in a word, not a being). Thus, the act always precedes the so-called metaphorical "swimming" or "immersing" oneself, as it is impossible without being active and proactive: "der erlösende Mensch der grossen Liebe und Verachtung, der schöpferische Geist, den seine drängende Kraft aus allem Abseits und Jenseits immer wieder wegtreibt, dessen Einsamkeit vom Volke missverstanden wird, wie als ob sie eine Flucht vor der Wirklichkeit sei" (which once again proves the difference between a figure like this, and a so-called "solitary sailor" as per original meaning, i.e. a saint).)]
"God" = a command ("Gott ist eine faustgrobe Antwort, eine Undelicatesse gegen uns Denker —, im Grunde sogar bloss ein faustgrobes Verbot an uns: ihr sollt nicht denken!…"). [As something that contains "the Law", it is a total structure of all that has a conditioning power to altercate reality into only thing that conforms with "the Law", not the other way around. From what it does follow that a people is always and can't be nothing other than an extension of their own god, i.e. of their own being, of laws of their conservation as a type or a "species" (speaking metaphorically), of society and so on, but a god doesn't always pertain to be truthful in terms of being oriented by the Being, as it can easily be oriented by the non-Being, by Nothing. From what it does again follow that a man has to be an extension of the Being itself first (a "Mitternacht-Leier", "die Mitternacht-Seele"), and an extension of a God - only after (if even, for he doesn't have to be so by the necessity of what is; it is also easy to see that a priest is the one who usurps the right to speak to and fro Being, a right to "holy lie", of things in which a human can't decide what is truth and what is not a truth (but then, a priest did decide that already... doesn't that contradict the priest's statement? obviously, it does, logically, and then?.. what follows from this?), i.e. the knowledge, the philosophy and so on, — to reclaim this right is to be truthful qua Being and to ensure the capacity for own survivability, own power, mastery not "over Being", but as mastery "with Being", "as Being", which in "itself", at first, a freedom to speak, and then, a freedom to act (as the "instinct of freedom" is just an expression of the will to power; psychoanalysis (and, possibly, a self-analysis?) being a perfect expression of absolute freedom to speak, freely associate ("free association principle" as "radical psychoanalysis") as one sees fit without any restriction or distraction, i.e. the full expression of one own's Being)). (If we conflate "Being" and "God", this won't make any sensible meaning, as Being will lose the meaning of commandment, allowing free adaptability without any so-called "love" or "punishment", i.e. losing the property of a law, and simply becoming a description that doesn't do anything at all, doesn't act, just exists, as [God's] being, with the utmost stupidity ("das Eselsfest"). But the reader is free to do as they want....)]
"Life" = a process. [Static being (Sein) is excluded in favor of becoming (Dasein) as the entity of a first rank, and becomes an entity of a second rank.]

>>1445
In itself, what follows below: an exploration of a human's ability to freely associate, with the great precision as per Being itself and not per what is "the Truth" as an edifice of a non-living statue (of not what was and is decided to be true by followers of Plato, of Buddha, of Christ, or anyone else). Which doesn't mean this flow can't be "vivisected" and changed freely, as per laws for thinking qua Being as being truthful, even by it's owner or anyone...
See fit to do so as per your own.

The Eternalist.

Alles Vergängliche
Ist nur ein Gleichnis;
Das Unzulängliche,
Hier wird's Ereignis;
Das Unbeschreibliche,
Hier ist's getan;
Das Ewig-Weibliche
Zieht uns hinan.

[ Ah, you preach patience with earthly things? It is this earthly thing that has too much patience with you, you blasphemers!
Truly, that Hebrew whom the preachers of a slow death honor died too soon: and for many since then, his premature death has been a disaster.
He still knew only tears and the melancholy of the Hebrew, along with the hatred of the good and the righteous — the Hebrew Jesus: then the longing for death overcame him.
If only he had stayed in the desert, far from the good and the righteous! Perhaps he would have learned to live and love the earth — and laughter too!
Believe me, my brothers! He died too soon; he himself would have recanted his teachings had he lived to my age! He was noble enough to recant!
But he was still immature. The youth loves immaturely, and he also hates man and earth immaturely. His mind and spiritual wings are still bound and heavy.
But there is more child in the man than in the youth, and less melancholy: he understands life and death better.
Free to die and free in death, a holy naysayer when there is no longer time to say yes: thus he understands life and death.
That your death be no blasphemy against man and earth, my friends: this I ask from the honey of your soul.
In your death, your spirit and your virtue shall still glow, like a sunset around the earth: or else, death will have been a bad choice for you.
So I myself will die, so that you, friends, may love the earth more for my sake; and I will return to the earth, so that I may find peace in her who bore me.
Truly, Zarathustra had a goal, he threw his ball: now you, friends, are the heirs of my goal, to you I throw the golden ball.

— It is possible that beneath the holy fable and disguise of [Nietzsche's /] Jesus' life lies one of the most painful cases of the martyrdom of the knowledge of love: the martyrdom of the most innocent and desirous heart, which never had enough of any human love, which demanded love, to be loved, and nothing more, with harshness, with madness, with terrible outbursts against those who denied him love; the story of a poor man, unsatisfied and insatiable in love, who had to invent a hell to send those who would not love him there — and who, finally, having become knowledgeable about human love, had to invent a God who is all love, all capable of loving — who takes pity on human love because it is so miserable, so ignorant! Anyone who feels this way, who knows this way about love — is seeking death ["Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously."]. But why dwell on such painful things? Supposing one doesn't have to... ]