I may have erred in my interpretation of his post. There are some conclusions that I find no foundation for, which is unusual in one of his posts. So, I may be missing something.
“Have not there been among those vulgarly styled the wisest, such as have collected (their wealth) for the great chief? and among those styled the most sage such as have guarded it for him? How do I know that it has been so? Formerly, Lung-fang was beheaded; Pi-kan had his heart torn out; Khang Hung was ripped open; and Dze-hsu was reduced to pulp (in the Kiang). Worthy as those four men were, they did not escape such dreadful deaths. The followers of the robber Kih asked him, saying, 'Has the robber also any method or principle (in his proceedings)?'
I can say the same of the domestic abuser:
What profession is there which has not its principles? That the tyrant in his recklessness comes to the conclusion that there is value in stealing and subordinating the spirit of a woman shows his sageness; that he is the first to impose his will upon her shows his bravery; that he is the last to quit it shows his righteousness; that he knows this woman will submit or not shows his wisdom; and that he deigns to feed her shows his benevolence. Without all these five qualities no one in the world has ever attained to become a great brute.
I can turn it still to the priest
What profession is there which has not its principles? That the priest in his recklessness comes to the conclusion that there is value in seeing the face of G-d shows his sageness; that he is the first to pray for the necessary instruction shows his bravery; that he is the last to quit it shows his righteousness; that he knows G-d will reveal himself is his wisdom; and that he shares his accumulated knowledge shows his benevolence. Without all these five qualities no one in the world has ever attained to become a man of spirit.
Yet these things are games and games alone. Such rationalizations serve only as walls of spirit, imprisoning the mind and soul. Non-duality is in the Being, not tricks of mind born of philosophers.
I am exactly what I am. Shall others feel fear or love or anything in between, I will remain unfolding. I am that which I am as is anyone else. If you want to be a thief by all means, do so, yet go forth on your raids without my blessing. Crowley once wrote something like, you have the right to kill me if you don't like my hat but it too must be your will to go to prison. Crowley was quite correct.
I have seen such musings as Jack offers enacted by others with the 'fuck you if you can't take a joke attitude.' The problem is when someone inverses the process, the party of the first part can't take the joke either. I saw one man of this sort turn so hard on a woman with curses that her life shattered and she moved into poverty 1,500 miles away from all she has known. How his magick shattered her albeit fragile life is one of the saddest stories of magick I have ever witnessed. If it is all such a joke, why the vicious revenge?*
This philosophy of Nietzche eventually turns into self-aggrandizement. I have never been a fan of such constructs, as a glimpse of world history demonstrates its conclusions far better than I.
*Please note I am not implying that Jack had anything whatsoever to do with that story. As far as I can tell, Jack is a decent sort of fellow.