By all means, gaze into the abyss of revenge

Nietzsche supposedly said, ”Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

People like to quote it a lot these days. I prefer Adam Smith’s, “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent,” but let’s stick to Niezsche for now.

Now, while the monster sentence sounds logical and poetic, I find it insidious and purposefully vague. And I like clarity.

Who decides when you become a monster? When do you cross the threshold? Who judges you that you’re a monster and who gave that person or group the authority to judge you? Do you really need to listen to someone else’s judgments about your revenge without them understanding, or their unwillingness to understand, the context in which the revenge takes place?

You see, the ”monster” quote by Nietzsche can be used by all sorts of manipulators, gaslighters and psychopaths to mess with your mind and painting you as the one in the wrong. ”Don’t do this, you’ll be a monster” as a way to guilt you into inaction, while they go on doing their nasty things. ”Do as I say, not as I do” suits perfectly here.

These types often use philosophy, or rather endless philosophical diatribes and debates filled with big words but, all in all, just nonsense, to obscure and deflect, point fingers at others, so barely anyone, or no one, points the finger at them. The actual abusers, criminals, gaslighters, and so on.

By philosophizing with you, attention shifts to others, or to you. That’s what they want. So, never forget who’s the victim and who’s the perpetrator and don’t let these philosophizing types manipulate you. ”You’ve gotta take the moral high ground.” Oh, alright, then. We’ll get tortured, maimed and die screaming but at least we’ve taken the moral high ground. What nonsense.

Yes, philosophy is noble, ancient and can be extremely helpful in life but keep in mind it can be weaponized by all sorts of gaslighters to hide their crimes behind a veneer of debate and lofty notions. They don’t want to debate, but confuse everyone so much that who’s responsible for what, and the truth of the matter, these things are lost in philosophizing.

No, when dealing with enemies, it must be clear they are the guilty party and it must be clear why they are guilty. No mind games. Is there a point of trying someone in a court of law if it’s clear they are responsible for genocide, even when verbally supporting it and not actually carrying out genocide? I understand people have the right to defend themselves in court but, as with serial killers and other maniacs, there’s the danger of your enemy using the court to spread the message of hate and such trials are guaranteed to attract attention.

The enemy must be punished and that punishment ought to be methodical and leading to potential reform and not too quick of a punishment, so as to allow the enemy to escape the punitive pain and humiliation. The enemy is likely going to play the victim card, might even quote Nietzsche, and accuse us of being psychopaths – just another gaslighting tactic called projection where pathological liars ascribe their own flaws onto others to muddle the narrative. When guilt is established without any doubt, and in the age of media it’s extremely easy to do, there must be no confusion as to who’s the perpetrator to be punished, even if it means humiliation, and who’s the victim – though the word victim is disempowering. Sometimes, it’s better to say target, and so on. If there’s footage of someone calling for genocide over and over again, if there’s footage of war crimes, can there really be debate about the blame and the guilt?

What, a deepfake? There are experts who can ascertain without any doubt what’s real and what’s AI- generated. As soon as we lose that ability, we lose civilization.

The Nazi Germany argument against humiliation because it makes the defeated enemy feel vengeful, well, that part is easy to solve. Emasculating enemies to the point they are no longer a threat, even if they throw tantrums, or turning them into assets.

Indeed, if one punishes the enemy but does so ”half-cocked,” then yes, the enemy is going to wait, rearm or whatever, and strike hard. The defeat must be complete, the lowering of the status and ascribing of guilt must be complete, or else the enemy is going to come back with a vengeance. History shows it clearly. Generally, in life, things must be done thoroughly, or else they fall apart, eventually, and punishment and a potential reform are no different.

If Z-patriots are such patriots of Russia, they can be forced to play tennis in high heels when they go to hell. After all, Russia is big on tennis, and there would be quite an audience, I’m sure. Schadenfreude perfectly justified. Maybe even worse than the Carol of the Bells or cha-cha-cha.

Look at Hamas. Did Hamas have any qualms about humiliating the hostages? Of course not. ”Well, we can’t do that, we’re ethical.” Oh, here we go. When you respond in kind, you’re not a monster. You’re methodical. Equalizing, so to speak. Please, let’s be careful about quoting Nietzsche, and others, because these quotes are often used by abusers, perpetrators, and gaslighters of all kinds to point the finger at others, or just create confusion by endlessly debating to the point where who’s guilty is lost in a disinformation and propaganda maze.

That’s what they want.

Samson had no issues with revenge and his revenge was logical and justified. Yes, it was a self-destructive revenge, but calculated still. It was, indeed, a dish best served cold.

Clarity is our friend. Don’t let manipulators, the deluded and useful idiots distract you. Don’t engage in debates with them because they only want to confuse you. They don’t actually care about debating anything with you. And if they call you a fanatic, an extremist or a terrorist – remember: they are afraid of your clear thinking, they can’t manipulate you, and so they resort to name-calling. Good to know they’ve shown their true colors.